[LUTE] Theorbo/prop; youtube solves mystery, Thanks.
Thanks for the youtube links. I didn't remember that front shot of the instrument from 1991 (?). It is obviously an attiorbato being fake played by an actor. After all these years, the fingering is even more distracting than I remember.--Especially St. Colombe in that scene. I guess Mr. Sovall had his work cut out for him and couldn't possibly hope to teach a bunch of scene actors to convincingly fake it. Thanks, MB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo/prop; youtube solves mystery, Thanks.
I seem to remember hearing that in one scene, Jordi Savall was actually behind Gérard Depardieu doing the fingering, so at least that shot should be in sync - also that Guillaume did learn a bit of gamba in order to be more convincing - it's along time since I saw the film - Jean-Marie might be able to confirm this. - Original Message - From: Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 9:07 AM Subject: [LUTE] Theorbo/prop; youtube solves mystery, Thanks. Thanks for the youtube links. I didn't remember that front shot of the instrument from 1991 (?). It is obviously an attiorbato being fake played by an actor. After all these years, the fingering is even more distracting than I remember.--Especially St. Colombe in that scene. I guess Mr. Sovall had his work cut out for him and couldn't possibly hope to teach a bunch of scene actors to convincingly fake it. Thanks, MB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop+Jean-Marie Poirier?
Ed, Here is my personal photo of L'Ensemble Phal=E8se Consort (The Little Big-Band), Pascal Gallon is directing on the left, and Jean- Marie Poirer, is second from the right in the front row (taken at a music festival in Caen, where Jacob Heringman was the guest). You will see that he is indeed left-handed. http://tinyurl.com/35ewba Jean-Marie, as Lina Messina says has at least two very interesting web sites. He also uses, at least some gut on his lute, as he told me he still has some of the original loaded strings in use on one of his lutes. http://poirierjm.free.fr/ http://le.luth.free.fr/ I hope your trip to the museum of music goes well. Regards Anthony Le 2 fevr. 08 =E0 08:10, Edward Martin a ecrit : At 10:25 PM 2/1/2008 -0800, howard posner wrote: All that said, the answer to the original question is that the lute player is really playing a real liuto attiorbato, in sync. I don't think it's Lislevand, because he plays left-handed (unlike the theorbo player in the orchestra scenes). I did not think that Lislevand plays left handed, or are you referring to the player in the movie? It does not appear anything like Lislevand. Is there not a law, or rather a contract issue with non-actors (i.e., musicians) acting in movies? ed Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop+Jean-Marie Poirier?
I think I had problems sending this message, sorry if it is duplicated... Thanks Tony, Anthony and Lino for the kind words and link to my webpage. Don't be mistaken : Lino is also a talented player, the only thing is he is right-handed; nobody's perfect... ;-))) ! Well, Tony, if I remember well - the film was shot in 1991...- I think there is one scene where we can see the hands of Jean-Louis Charbonnier when JP MArielle is doing Air Viol the rest of the time (as someone said before). JL,Charbonnier was in charge of teaching the actors how to hold a viol and move their arms to give the impression they could really play...You can appreciate the results. Some were obviously more gifted than others, weren't they ? I fake play on the song Une jeune fillette but it's true I played along and Marielle didn't for the simple reason that I'm a lute player and he is NOT a viol player, but an excellent actor anyway. In the scene with the two Sainte Colombe girls, I play a lute made by the English maker John Gorrett in 1980. It isn't a copy an Italian model but was inspired by different models, Sellas included. It is not a faithful copy of an extant instrument really. I still use this instrument as an archlute and it works quite well indeed. I think that's it for my memorabilia ;-). Tony, hope to see you at our concert on Saturday ! Best to eveybody, Jean-Marie Poirier [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02-02-2008 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 [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: G Theorbo or movie prop?
All that said, the answer to the original question is that the lute player is really playing a real liuto attiorbato, in sync. I don't think it's Lislevand, because he plays left-handed Ehm... No, he doesnt... But he does play a very small right-handed theorbo. The reason he chose a small instrument is simply practical. A small instrument is easier to bring on an airplane! 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 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] G Theorbo or movie prop?
Does anyone remember the instrument used in the movie All the Mornings of the World to accompany the two girls singing Un Jeune Fillette? The liner notes on the disc say R. Lislevand- theorbo. It has been some years since I saw the movie, but I remember marveling at this instrument having a very short neck extension and strangely attached/placed upper peg box. At the time, I summed it up to an unfamiliar French variation of the English theorbo, or a pure Hollywood style movie prop. If It is a prop, it's a little puzzling as to why, with Jordi Sovall as music director, a fictional instrument would be written into the screen play. Does a historical example of such an instrument exist? Could it be a historically plausible instrument bridging the transition from bass lute to theorbo? Can anyone shed some light on this subject? MB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop?
Michael, the scene is on YouTube. The fingering not synching drives me crazy in that movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ9xqBsROBQ On 2/1/08, Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone remember the instrument used in the movie All the Mornings of the World to accompany the two girls singing Un Jeune Fillette? The liner notes on the disc say R. Lislevand- theorbo. It has been some years since I saw the movie, but I remember marveling at this instrument having a very short neck extension and strangely attached/placed upper peg box. At the time, I summed it up to an unfamiliar French variation of the English theorbo, or a pure Hollywood style movie prop. If It is a prop, it's a little puzzling as to why, with Jordi Sovall as music director, a fictional instrument would be written into the screen play. Does a historical example of such an instrument exist? Could it be a historically plausible instrument bridging the transition from bass lute to theorbo? Can anyone shed some light on this subject? MB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop?
Michael, musepi, The movie itself didn't sync up because the actors didn't play the instruments we heard. I confess I watched most of the movie with my eyes closed. Sean On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:25 PM, Lisa Sass wrote: Michael, the scene is on YouTube. The fingering not synching drives me crazy in that movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ9xqBsROBQ On 2/1/08, Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone remember the instrument used in the movie All the Mornings of the World to accompany the two girls singing Un Jeune Fillette? The liner notes on the disc say R. Lislevand- theorbo. It has been some years since I saw the movie, but I remember marveling at this instrument having a very short neck extension and strangely attached/placed upper peg box. At the time, I summed it up to an unfamiliar French variation of the English theorbo, or a pure Hollywood style movie prop. If It is a prop, it's a little puzzling as to why, with Jordi Sovall as music director, a fictional instrument would be written into the screen play. Does a historical example of such an instrument exist? Could it be a historically plausible instrument bridging the transition from bass lute to theorbo? Can anyone shed some light on this subject? MB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop?
On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Sean Smith wrote: The movie itself didn't sync up because the actors didn't play the instruments we heard. I confess I watched most of the movie with my eyes closed. True, the on-camera playing would have looked more realistic had they used the Muppets, who do that sort of thing really well. But you may have missed the point, Sean. Let me take this opportunity to remind the lute community of Steve Hendricks' web site for the air lute http://thehendricks.net/air_lute.htm , an invaluable scholarly resource. He places Tous les Matins in proper perspective: In the movie Tous les matins du monde, the actor playing Ste. Colombe has pioneered a new area of musical endeavor. He essentially plays Air Viol, although he does so while actually holding a viol and bow! His mastery of Air Viol technique is apparent when his fingers and bow do not move with the music and fretting occurs with truly virtuosic randomness. There could be ample opportunities to apply this new and exciting concept to Air Lute, perhaps in a movie about John Dowland. It could really bring out the lack in Lachrimae. All that said, the answer to the original question is that the lute player is really playing a real liuto attiorbato, in sync. I don't think it's Lislevand, because he plays left-handed (unlike the theorbo player in the orchestra scenes). I'm sure one of the European correspondents remembers his name. An Italian lute is an interesting choice for this quintessentially French story. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop?
At 10:25 PM 2/1/2008 -0800, howard posner wrote: All that said, the answer to the original question is that the lute player is really playing a real liuto attiorbato, in sync. I don't think it's Lislevand, because he plays left-handed (unlike the theorbo player in the orchestra scenes). I did not think that Lislevand plays left handed, or are you referring to the player in the movie? It does not appear anything like Lislevand. Is there not a law, or rather a contract issue with non-actors (i.e., musicians) acting in movies? ed Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop?
Dear Lutelist, The lute player is Mr Jean-Marie Poirier and it is a true talented left hand French lute player! Here is his interesting web site: http://poirierjm.free.fr/ Best regard Lino -Message d'origine- De : howard posner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : samedi 2 février 2008 07:25 À : Lute Net Objet : [LUTE] Re: G Theorbo or movie prop? On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Sean Smith wrote: The movie itself didn't sync up because the actors didn't play the instruments we heard. I confess I watched most of the movie with my eyes closed. True, the on-camera playing would have looked more realistic had they used the Muppets, who do that sort of thing really well. But you may have missed the point, Sean. Let me take this opportunity to remind the lute community of Steve Hendricks' web site for the air lute http://thehendricks.net/air_lute.htm , an invaluable scholarly resource. He places Tous les Matins in proper perspective: In the movie Tous les matins du monde, the actor playing Ste. Colombe has pioneered a new area of musical endeavor. He essentially plays Air Viol, although he does so while actually holding a viol and bow! His mastery of Air Viol technique is apparent when his fingers and bow do not move with the music and fretting occurs with truly virtuosic randomness. There could be ample opportunities to apply this new and exciting concept to Air Lute, perhaps in a movie about John Dowland. It could really bring out the lack in Lachrimae. All that said, the answer to the original question is that the lute player is really playing a real liuto attiorbato, in sync. I don't think it's Lislevand, because he plays left-handed (unlike the theorbo player in the orchestra scenes). I'm sure one of the European correspondents remembers his name. An Italian lute is an interesting choice for this quintessentially French story. -- 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] theorbo size
Just out of interest, what size chitaronne do you think Piccinini was playing when he wrote his pieces? I used to have a 92cm chitaronne and I can tell you not many of those pieces are playable on a monster like that. The theorbo I have now measures 85 cm and even then a lot of the pieces are only just playable, particularly the slurred passages and leaps from one end of the fingerboard to another. May be the Italians, like the French, had two basic sizes of chitaronne: one for solo pieces and one for accompanying. I don't know, I'm just wondering... Nigel 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 size
Nigel, I wonder about this too based on my own experiences with big and small theorbos. As I stated on a earlier post on a related subject, its probable that Pittoni and Melli (Melli, definately, Pittoni is a little less definative) wrote for an instrument with an octave second course. This meant that they had to have an instrument with a neck short enough for a high (AND low) E, yet long enough to tune in A. (In this case, Pittoni is definately in A because of the part in mensual notation. Melli - presumably in A, but who knows?) At any rate, I've found sections of a lot of Italian solo music to be quite technically challening even on my small theorbo (76cm) which I currently have inauthentically tuned in A. And then there's always the tiorbino tuned an octave higher than the regular theorbo... Only Castaldi published for this, but I suppose it could have been in wider use for solo music in Italy than we now know. (Is that smallish instrument he's holding in the engraving a theorbo or tiorbino?) This is not definative, either, I'm afraid. Castaldi's pieces specifying the tiorbino are all deuts with a full-sized theorbo. Since the part for standard theorbo in these duets is of equal difficulty as the part for tiorbino, the big guy has to do all the same acrobatics as the small fry. This doesn't help us much in figuring out which tiorba is the more practical solo instrument. Maybe if David Dolata is lurking out there, he could help us out... Chris --- Nigel Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just out of interest, what size chitaronne do you think Piccinini was playing when he wrote his pieces? I used to have a 92cm chitaronne and I can tell you not many of those pieces are playable on a monster like that. The theorbo I have now measures 85 cm and even then a lot of the pieces are only just playable, particularly the slurred passages and leaps from one end of the fingerboard to another. May be the Italians, like the French, had two basic sizes of chitaronne: one for solo pieces and one for accompanying. I don't know, I'm just wondering... Nigel To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[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] Theorbo stringing
Dear Nigel, My 14-course theorbo in A has eight pegs for short strings, and eight pegs for long strings. This means I can string it 6/8, 7/7, or 8/6. I used to have it 7/7, but a broken string made me change to eight short and six long, and I've stayed that way ever since. Even though I could have both a low F and a stopped low F# available, I rarely take advantage of this. I tune the 8th course to F or F# depending on the key of the music, and just get on with it, as best I can. In the past, if they didn't have the note available, they didn't play it. Obvious. One can download free from the internet Fleury's treatise on playing the theorbo, published in 1660. He clearly had six short strings on his theorbo. On page 8 he gives a chromatic scale up from low F to the D above middle C. Above each note of the scale he gives the appropriate chord in tablature. His theorbo in A doesn't have a low F# and G#, so he simply plays those notes an octave higher. For the first six notes of the scale he gives the following chords: _ab__ __b_|_d__a__|__b__|__b___ __b__d__|_d__a__|__b__|__d___ __c_|b__|_|__d___ _e__|___|_|__ |___|__a__|__b___ etc. /a a Switching from one octave to another may upset those of a theoretical frame of mind, but in practice it can work to one's advantage. Fleury's 2nd and 4th chords are both 1st inversions, and may be regarded as weak chords. Their effect is usually less strong than a chord in root position. Having the bass note of these inverted chords an octave higher, emphasises their weakness. If you play all the notes on a theorbo at written pitch, you may never use those long strings. If you play every note an octave lower than written, you will certainly use those low strings, but the theorbo will start to sound like a double bass, and you stop noticing at what octave the music is played. If, on the other hand, you keep switching from one octave to another, whether by choice or because you are forced by what notes are available, you become more aware of the lower notes, and can enjoy them more. Marin Marais' music for solo bass viol and continuo shows how effective such a bass line can be, as he switches octaves to cover the full range of a 7-string bass viol. It is worth noting that Marais' preferred instrument for continuo, at least for music in his first book, was the theorbo. Taking my cue from Marais, when playing continuo, I sometimes drop an octave for a special chord, e.g. for a scrumptious 642: ___a___ __aa___a___ __aa___ __bb___ __c ___d___a___ ///a especially if the music is slow. In this example, you can see that the voice-leading is all over the place, but it's worth it for the extra sonority on that low D. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. - Original Message - From: Nigel Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:18 PM Subject: [LUTE] Theorbo stringing Now, while we're talking about theorbos in G or A, even though the majority of theorbos seemm to have 6 strings on the fingerboard and 8 diapasons, how many of you cheat and stick the 7th (i.e. G if the theorbo is in A) on the fingerboard too? Come on, own up! I am asking because even though none of the Italian music, that I've seen anyway, stops strings lower than the 6th, as soon as you play continuo you invariably need a bottom Gsharp. What is the answer? Sacrifice that wonderful 14th course and put on a thin Gsharp? I asked my lute maker to set up my theorbo with the possibility of 7 + 7 (rather than 6 + 8) for continuo work. How do other people get round that beastly note without losing the wonderful diapason string? I previously owned a 16-course theorbo with the bottom two courses tuned to fsharp and Gsharp. May be that's the answer, I know that Kapsberger used a theorbo with more strings. Most nowadays only seem to have 14 though. Theorbos seem complicated enough as it is though, without adding an extra 2 strings! Nigel -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo stringing
On Jan 30, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Stewart McCoy wrote: I can string it 6/8, 7/7, or 8/6. I used to have it 7/7, but a broken string made me change to eight short and six long, and I've stayed that way ever since. Even though I could have both a low F and a stopped low F# available, I rarely take advantage of this. I tune the 8th course to F or F# depending on the key of the music, and just get on with it, as best I can. I also have 8 strings on the fingerboard, and rarely fret the 8th. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo stringing
Stewart, --- Stewart McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even though I could have both a low F and a stopped low F# available, I rarely take advantage of this. I tune the 8th course to F or F# depending on the key of the music, and just get on with it, as best I can. I used to have 8 strings on the board but rarely used the low F#. For one thing you can't play a very full-sounding chord above this note because your hand is so stretched out just reaching for the bass note. F# an octave higher sounds just as full IMO. Now I have 7 on the board. I can not believe how many recits have a prominent, exposed low G#, usually forming the bass of a very expressive diminished or dominant sonority. I find myself using this quite a bit even though I know it wasn't the norm on most theorbos. In the past, if they didn't have the note available, they didn't play it. Obvious. One can download free from the internet Fleury's treatise on playing the theorbo, published in 1660. He clearly had six short strings on his theorbo. On page 8 he gives a chromatic scale up from low F to the D above middle C. Above each note of the scale he gives the appropriate chord in tablature. His theorbo in A doesn't have a low F# and G#, so he simply plays those notes an octave higher. For the first six notes of the scale he gives the following chords: _ab__ __b_|_d__a__|__b__|__b___ __b__d__|_d__a__|__b__|__d___ __c_|b__|_|__d___ _e__|___|_|__ |___|__a__|__b___ etc. /a a Problem! The 4th chord is actually _not_ in first inversion if you're using a re-entrant theorbo tuning which I assume Fleury did. (If he used the second course an octave higher, then none of this applies.)The second course E will actually be a third lower than the bass note G# on the 4th course. This is what David Taylor has been calling crossing the bass and it is the sort of thing he claims hotshot modern directors will throw you out of their groups and blacklist you forever if you do too much. Yet here is evidence that theorbists did it. Although I avoid inversions like this as much as possible, I'll concede that the E below the bass does not SOUND too much like its below the bass since the thumb emphasizes the G#. Still, it sounds a bit funny if you're not used to hearing it. Chris Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo Question
Mace, Wilson MH David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the solo theorbo, being by definition an instrument of shorter playing length, is known to have been tuned with only the first course in re-entrant tuning, presumably there was some amount of solo repertoire for that tuning. Where can it be found? The only solo repertoire I know of is written for a theorbo with courses one and two in re-entrant 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 - Sent from Yahoo! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[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
[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 G
[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
[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?
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
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
[LUTE] Theorbo Question
If the solo theorbo, being by definition an instrument of shorter playing length, is known to have been tuned with only the first course in re-entrant tuning, presumably there was some amount of solo repertoire for that tuning. Where can it be found? The only solo repertoire I know of is written for a theorbo with courses one and two in re-entrant 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 Question
As far as reentrant goes, a notch away in size is also a notch in pitch, so a size smaller can be tuned in double reentrant a tone higher. So that is really not an issue. I use double for most solo pieces, but some sound persuasive in single. My solo instrument at 465 in A is too high for single reentrant to sound good, at 77cm. It would work at 415 or 392, however. 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?
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] Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
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 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
[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?
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?
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?
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! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
Are, I had a quick look through the libro primo di lauto, but could not find any indication of more than 10 courses. You must be mixing up the primo di chitarone. G. - Original Message - From: Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:01 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G) be that the lute in question here actually is a 10/11-corse liuto attiorbato? If that means, 1st and 2nd courses normal (like on the lute), the answer is no. All pieces of Libro prima require 1st and 2nd courses down the octave. (Nevertheless, one might want to discuss one or another toccata.) Ops, I was thinking about the Libro primo for lute, not the Libro primo for chitarrone. The recordings I know of the music from that book is played on a regular french 10-course lute, but I have wondered if Kapsberger might have had a liuto attiorbato in mind, not the least because I have heard that the music actually requires an 11-course instrument in a few places. Are To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 - Release Date: 16.01.2008 09:01
[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: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
I had a quick look through the libro primo di lauto, but could not find any indication of more than 10 courses. You must be mixing up the primo di chitarone. No, the person who told me was very specific that it was the libro primo di lauto, and that this is the first source for 11-course lute. But I guess he was wrong, then. ;-) 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?
What do you call a tablature polyglot? A tablyglot? G. - Original Message - From: Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 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: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
Yeah, and he was probably right! On second check, page 29 ms. 27 shows an 11th course? G. - Original Message - From: Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:33 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G) I had a quick look through the libro primo di lauto, but could not find any indication of more than 10 courses. You must be mixing up the primo di chitarone. No, the person who told me was very specific that it was the libro primo di lauto, and that this is the first source for 11-course lute. But I guess he was wrong, then. ;-) Are To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 - Release Date: 16.01.2008 09:01
[LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
Corrente 7 - Original Message - From: Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:02 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G) Yeah, and he was probably right! On second check, page 29 ms. 27 shows an 11th course? !? Which piece? Are To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 - Release Date: 16.01.2008 09:01
[LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
Yeah, and he was probably right! On second check, page 29 ms. 27 shows an 11th course? !? Which piece? Are To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
No, (just answer yourself). Its a 9 with a dotted note, hence not an 11th at all! This music is purely 10 c - Original Message - From: G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G) Corrente 7 - Original Message - From: Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:02 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G) Yeah, and he was probably right! On second check, page 29 ms. 27 shows an 11th course? !? Which piece? Are To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 - Release Date: 16.01.2008 09:01
[LUTE] Re: banchieri and the Theorbo in G
Unfortunately my work it's in Italian only. It was written 12 years ago and I'm now working again on it, for a printed version. What you read is just a draft copy. Pretty good for a draft copy, I'd say. Thank you for sharing this with us. 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: banchieri and the Theorbo in G
Thank you, Diego. I hope someone translates it into other languages as it looks very interesting. I can only understand a few words here and there, and it is very easy for me to misunderstand, so I will wait for some kind person to translate it into English. I'm constantly embarrassed about my inability to learn languages - I've tried on many occasions, but never get beyond saying 'I love you' and ordering a cappuccino! You may have answered my next question... Looking again at Giulio Caccini's 1614 book, the lowest note is D below the bass clef. If we take the imaginative leap and accept for a moment that his bass lines might actually be what he played on his theorbo, he seems to have had a 10c theorbo, as with Kapsberger's first book, possibly a large bass lute in A with the first two courses down an octave. Did Banchieri utilize more than ten courses? Is it possible he had a large 10c bass lute in G with just the first course down an octave? I'm wondering how many of the early publications for a 'theorbo' (various spellings) or chitarrone were actually for large 10c bass lutes with re-entrant tunings? Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 January 2008 23:14 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] banchieri and the Theorbo in G Banchieri in his Conclusioni nel suono dell'organo (Bologna 1609), p. 59, gives a G tuning for the chitarrone, with the reentrant tuning for the first string only. From my homepage (under 'docs tab') you can download a pdf copy of my dissertation about the chitarrone and the continuo in Italy. At p. 64 you can find the facsimile from Banchieri. Unfortunately my work it's in Italian only. It was written 12 years ago and I'm now working again on it, for a printed version. What you read is just a draft copy. Here's the link: www.diegocantalupi.it/tesi.pdf Diego To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: banchieri and the Theorbo in G
[EMAIL PROTECTED] écrit: Banchieri in his Conclusioni nel suono dell'organo (Bologna 1609), p. 59, gives a G tuning for the chitarrone, with the reentrant tuning for the first string only. From my homepage (under 'docs tab') you can download a pdf copy of my dissertation about the chitarrone and the continuo in Italy. At p. 64 you can find the facsimile from Banchieri. Unfortunately my work it's in Italian only. It was written 12 years ago and I'm now working again on it, for a printed version. What you read is just a draft copy. Thanks for sharing this, Diego. Looks very interesting. And let us know when the printed version comes out. Dennis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: banchieri and the Theorbo in G
I'm wondering how many of the early publications for a 'theorbo' (various spellings) or chitarrone were actually for large 10c bass lutes with re-entrant tunings? I wonder about this too! As far as I know, Kapsberger's Libro primo for chitarrone is for a 10-course instrument. Are PS: I think it was Rob who earlier suggested that Rolf Lislevand uses nylgut. He doesnt. He uses all gut and thumb-in on all his instruments, including baroque lute and theorbo. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] banchieri and the Theorbo in G
I'm wondering how many of the early publications for a 'theorbo' (various spellings) or chitarrone were actually for large 10c bass lutes with re-entrant tunings? I wonder about this too! As far as I know, Kapsberger's Libro primo for chitarrone is for a 10-course instrument. You can find an answer at p. 42 and 43 of my work. Kapsberger's Libro primo is for a 11-course instrument. However, it's interesting the use in the toccata VI (p.14, 7th line of the page, 4th bar) of a small number 14 for the 14th string. From the music, it's clear that it's not a bass G, but a high g sharp (a semiton higher than the 7th). If the use of a 14th string as an f sharp is not so uncommon in archlutes, is the only occurence I know in theorbo music. Two other considerations are obviouse: no italian theorbo music (except Bartolotti, not really italian in his style) asks for a fretted 7th course (Bartolotti needs 7th and 8th) and the most of survived instruments are for 6+8 courses. Also if Kapsperger asks for a 14th course why doesn't he use 12th and 13th? Diego 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?
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?
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] Kapseberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
I'm wondering how many of the early publications for a 'theorbo' (various spellings) or chitarrone were actually for large 10c bass lutes with re-entrant tunings? I wonder about this too! As far as I know, Kapsberger's Libro primo for chitarrone is for a 10-course instrument. You can find an answer at p. 42 and 43 of my work. Kapsberger's Libro primo is for a 11-course instrument. Thank you! I have also been told that the Libro primo for lute also calls for an 11-course instrument at a few instances. Is this true? And could it be that the lute in question here actually is a 10/11-corse liuto attiorbato? Are To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Kapseberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
Are Vidar Boye Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: be that the lute in question here actually is a 10/11-corse liuto attiorbato? If that means, 1st and 2nd courses normal (like on the lute), the answer is no. All pieces of Libro prima require 1st and 2nd courses down the octave. (Nevertheless, one might want to discuss one or another toccata.) As for 11 courses, the fact that the music of Libro primo does not require more than 11 course (with one exception, as Diego Cantalupi remarked), does not imply that the chitarone (that's what Kapsberger calls the instrument) in 1604 Italy did not bear more than 11 courses. -- Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Kapsberger's lute (was: banchieri and the Theorbo in G)
be that the lute in question here actually is a 10/11-corse liuto attiorbato? If that means, 1st and 2nd courses normal (like on the lute), the answer is no. All pieces of Libro prima require 1st and 2nd courses down the octave. (Nevertheless, one might want to discuss one or another toccata.) Ops, I was thinking about the Libro primo for lute, not the Libro primo for chitarrone. The recordings I know of the music from that book is played on a regular french 10-course lute, but I have wondered if Kapsberger might have had a liuto attiorbato in mind, not the least because I have heard that the music actually requires an 11-course instrument in a few places. 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?
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. --
[LUTE] banchieri and the Theorbo in G
Banchieri in his Conclusioni nel suono dell'organo (Bologna 1609), p. 59, gives a G tuning for the chitarrone, with the reentrant tuning for the first string only. From my homepage (under 'docs tab') you can download a pdf copy of my dissertation about the chitarrone and the continuo in Italy. At p. 64 you can find the facsimile from Banchieri. Unfortunately my work it's in Italian only. It was written 12 years ago and I'm now working again on it, for a printed version. What you read is just a draft copy. Here's the link: www.diegocantalupi.it/tesi.pdf Diego 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?
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: banchieri and the Theorbo in G
Diego wrote: .. From my homepage (under 'docs tab') you can download a pdf copy of my dissertation about the chitarrone and the continuo in Italy. .. Here's the link: www.diegocantalupi.it/tesi.pdf Mille grazie Diego! Molto interessante! Ciao, Arto To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Small French theorbo in D - evidence?
James Talbot Ms (c1695) - Christchurch Library Music MS 1187 (part transcribed in Galpin Soc Journal Vol14 -March 1961) is the only source which clearly and unequivocally describes the instruments where it is called the 'Lesser French Theorboe' (string length works out around 75cm). Talbot also says ' The lesser Theorbo (fitt for lessons [solos?]) carryes the same number of ranks (courses) and Strings with F. Theorbo and is 4 notes higher all the way. Plus other helpful observations. He also confirms the tuning as in d. There is some evidence from M Crevecoeur quoted by Talbot of its use for continuo (and pitch standard. A French source calls for a 'theorbe de pieces' (or similar wording - can't lay my hands on it at the moment). Interestingly, the Saizeny Ms gives the keys of the de Visee theorbe pieces etc as for a theorbo in the usual A tuning, altho' this might have just been a convention and the smaller instrument cld have been intended I suppose. However I find I can play virtually all the pieces on my ordinary theorbo (90cm) - undoubtedly tho' a smaller instrument would make things easier. On similar instruments: I find a particularly useful instrument is a small theorbo with just the first course down the octave, either in A or G (most frequent in England) with a similar string length to the French lesser ie 75cm. The advantage of using the instrument in A is that if you already play the common proper large Italian theorbo in A (ie two two courses down) there's no confusion. Further, I've also speculated some time ago (FoMRHI Quarterly) that the frequent historical references to archlute (esp in England) may, in fact, have been just as likelt to mean small theorbos. Certainly the highest pitched course of one on A would be e' which is only a minor third below the top course of what we now generally think of as an archlute in G. This also allows us to make sense of one of Talbot MS other comments by M Crev. referring to the lesser Fr theorbo: 'This fitter for Thorough Bass than Arch Lute its Trebles being neither below the voice nor Instrs in Consort as Arch Lute' : here I don't think Talbot (or Crev) is saying that the nominal highest pitched note of the Lesser Fr theorbo (e') was higher than that of an archlute (g') [which is clearly absurd] but that it was easier for it to be tuned to reach common consort pitch (ie highest course e' at 75cm) compared to the archlute (say g' at 68cm) since at the consort pitch its treble would be closer to the breaking stress (about one and a half semitone stress steps higher). Of course, this doesn't confirm widespread use of the lesser Fr theorbo for continuo: it may have been M Crev. was puttong in a chaunanistic case for a French instrument since, interestingly, Talbot doesn't list a large French Theorbo but he does and 'English' theorbo tuned in A (NB NOT G) with a string length around 90cm. MH Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many references do we have for the small French theorbo in D? And how many of them actually state the pitch and approximate string length? I haven't studied this area, and can only recall one quotation, so I hope the collective wisdom here will bring me up to speed. Robert de Visee is interesting in this regard. Did he write his solos for the smaller instrument? If we take just one piece (hardly a scientific survey, but it is as far as I have gone so far), La Montfermeil, which appears in three versions, lute, theorbo and in 'partition'. Both the lute and Partition versions are in Am. The theorbo version would be in the same key on the theorbo in D, not A. Now, I know that arrangements might just as easily appear in different keys, so this proves nothing. What other evidence do we have that Visee, Hurel and any others specifically used the theorbo in D for solos? I guess at the back of my mind I think we might be assuming more popularity for the instrument than was the case, but I'll admit I don't know all the facts. So, chapter and verse please on the evidence. Cheers, 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 - Sent from Yahoo! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[LUTE] Re: Small French theorbo in D - evidence?
Many thanks, Martyn. Nothing there to convince me either that it was commonplace for French theorbo music or for de Visee. Cheers, Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: Martyn Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 January 2008 08:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Lute Net' Subject: [LUTE] Re: Small French theorbo in D - evidence? James Talbot Ms (c1695) - Christchurch Library Music MS 1187 (part transcribed in Galpin Soc Journal Vol14 -March 1961) is the only source which clearly and unequivocally describes the instruments where it is called the 'Lesser French Theorboe' (string length works out around 75cm). Talbot also says ' The lesser Theorbo (fitt for lessons [solos?]) carryes the same number of ranks (courses) and Strings with F. Theorbo and is 4 notes higher all the way. Plus other helpful observations. He also confirms the tuning as in d. There is some evidence from M Crevecoeur quoted by Talbot of its use for continuo (and pitch standard. A French source calls for a 'theorbe de pieces' (or similar wording - can't lay my hands on it at the moment). Interestingly, the Saizeny Ms gives the keys of the de Visee theorbe pieces etc as for a theorbo in the usual A tuning, altho' this might have just been a convention and the smaller instrument cld have been intended I suppose. However I find I can play virtually all the pieces on my ordinary theorbo (90cm) - undoubtedly tho' a smaller instrument would make things easier. On similar instruments: I find a particularly useful instrument is a small theorbo with just the first course down the octave, either in A or G (most frequent in England) with a similar string length to the French lesser ie 75cm. The advantage of using the instrument in A is that if you already play the common proper large Italian theorbo in A (ie two two courses down) there's no confusion. Further, I've also speculated some time ago (FoMRHI Quarterly) that the frequent historical references to archlute (esp in England) may, in fact, have been just as likelt to mean small theorbos. Certainly the highest pitched course of one on A would be e' which is only a minor third below the top course of what we now generally think of as an archlute in G. This also allows us to make sense of one of Talbot MS other comments by M Crev. referring to the lesser Fr theorbo: 'This fitter for Thorough Bass than Arch Lute its Trebles being neither below the voice nor Instrs in Consort as Arch Lute' : here I don't think Talbot (or Crev) is saying that the nominal highest pitched note of the Lesser Fr theorbo (e') was higher than that of an archlute (g') [which is clearly absurd] but that it was easier for it to be tuned to reach common consort pitch (ie highest course e' at 75cm) compared to the archlute (say g' at 68cm) since at the consort pitch its treble would be closer to the breaking stress (about one and a half semitone stress steps higher). Of course, this doesn't confirm widespread use of the lesser Fr theorbo for continuo: it may have been M Crev. was puttong in a chaunanistic case for a French instrument since, interestingly, Talbot doesn't list a large French Theorbo but he does and 'English' theorbo tuned in A (NB NOT G) with a string length around 90cm. MH Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many references do we have for the small French theorbo in D? And how many of them actually state the pitch and approximate string length? I haven't studied this area, and can only recall one quotation, so I hope the collective wisdom here will bring me up to speed. Robert de Visee is interesting in this regard. Did he write his solos for the smaller instrument? If we take just one piece (hardly a scientific survey, but it is as far as I have gone so far), La Montfermeil, which appears in three versions, lute, theorbo and in 'partition'. Both the lute and Partition versions are in Am. The theorbo version would be in the same key on the theorbo in D, not A. Now, I know that arrangements might just as easily appear in different keys, so this proves nothing. What other evidence do we have that Visee, Hurel and any others specifically used the theorbo in D for solos? I guess at the back of my mind I think we might be assuming more popularity for the instrument than was the case, but I'll admit I don't know all the facts. So, chapter and verse please on the evidence. Cheers, 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 - Sent from Yahoo! #45; a smarter inbox. --
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: theorbo music sources
Jurek, You should ask Lynda Sayce: www.theorbo.com Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: Jerzy Zak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 December 2007 19:28 To: Barocklautenliste Lutelist' Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] theorbo music sources Dear List, I know, the Christian MEYER catalogue of sources, both on paper and on the net is a splendid tool for searching through music in tablature, .but it doesn't mention (the www part) what is for lute and what is for a theorbo. In case of Italian chitarrone music there is Kevin Mason book, too, very usefull. My question, therefore, is -- do you know of any listing, possibly complete, of all other, not Italian, that is French!, German?, English??, etc., theorbo music sources, with their contents, of course? Thanks in advance, 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 nails
From what Weiss writes (and thanks for the quote Mathias - is it complete?), I infer that he's saying he is obliged to use nails on the theorbo to produce the volume/edge required but, because he doesn't mention doing so on the lute, he didn't on the lute. Incidentally. I suspect (again pure speculation of course) that he's not saying his theorbo nails were like those found with, say, modern flameco players (or Dalla Casa's), but that there was sufficient to provide solid support to the very tip of the finger. In practice if I'm doing a concert with large band and/or many voices, I find a week's growth can give sufficient slight extra length to provide such support - but I also find I need a few days to adjust and thus try and avoid theorbo and lute in such concerts (but the guitar's OK). MH Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether Stephen Stubbs or anyone else gets a good sound with nails on a baroque lute is neither here nor there. The question is whether Weiss used nails, and I maintain that the comments he made are inconclusive. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: Mathias Rösel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 December 2007 11:57 To: 'lute list' Subject: [LUTE] Re: Swanneck + loaded strings Rob schrieb: Mathias, I don't think we can definitely conclude from his statement no, of course, not def. that Weiss himself used nails. He might have implied it was common practice, but he doesn't say for sure that he used nails. As for the theorbo that is probable, though, IMHO. He says it's ordinairement played that way, but doesn't remark but I refrain from that horrible abuse or the like. Certainly he was employed as a continuo player, And he was known so as a marvelous accompagnist but clearly was also regarded as a special case, Regarding the theorbo, I'm not aware of another specialty besides his being fabulous. No mentioning of no-nails. one whose solo playing was highly valued as well. If he describes nail playing as 'rude', He doesn't. The quote bears on the sound of the theorbo as resulting from ordinarily using nails. He says if you come close the sound is coarse and rude because it's ordinairement played with nails. That is easily imaginable, I should add. Theorbo players in an orchestra who aren't heard will soon loose their posts. I doubt if he would have enjoyed playing the lute so much. You can use nails even on a baroque lute. To name just one player who keeps long nails because his main business is continuo playing in ensembles and orchestras but who nevertheless made very good solo recordings (Kellner, Saint Luc, Golden Age etc) is Stephen Stubbs. -- Mathias -Original Message- From: Mathias Rösel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 December 2007 11:09 To: Martyn Hodgson Cc: LGS-Europe; lute list Subject: [LUTE] Re: Swanneck + loaded strings Martyn Hodgson schrieb: Weiss does mention that playing with nails is acceptable on the theorbo but not on the lute (I don't have the exact quote to hand) In his letter to Mattheson he said that the theorbo yielded a somewhat rude sound as it was ordinairement (usually, ordinarily) played with nails. From which we may conclude that Weiss had nails long enough to play the theorbo since that was one of his duties at court. Which makes me wonder as for his playing the lute... Mathias LGS-Europe wrote: Perhaps OT on the lute-list either way, but I mentioned Sor and Giuliani, not baroque guitar music. Neither did I write one cannot play one kind of music with or without nails, just that you may notice the differences. Well it's simply because of your pre-conditioned approach to their music. You know (or you believe you know) that Sor wasn't using nails (i.e. because he or somebody else wrote about this or whatever). Did Piccinini, Castaldi, Robert de Visee, Weiss etc etc use nails or no nails? Can you spot that through their music? I very much doubt you can. I'm sure I cannot. I mentioned Sor and Giuliani, not theorbo music. David 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. --
[LUTE] Re: RE THEORBO NAILS + Topic
Might just be a good idea to make the tittle a little closer to the topic. Don't forget people later search for such topics, before opening a new thread. When, I alter the orientation of a topic, I just add a word to indicate that; but here the topic has clearly moved on. This last message sounds about right to my non specialist ears, having never played the theorbo. Regards Anthony Le 12 déc. 07 à 14:56, Joseph Mayes a écrit : I think this might be a case of front-end loading. That is: looking at data from an established point of view - to whit: Weiss hints that he used nails - that's inconclusive. If Weiss hinted that he didn't use nails - that would be evidence. Joseph Mayes On 12/12/07 8:43 AM, Mathias Rösel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Whether Stephen Stubbs or anyone else gets a good sound with nails on a baroque lute is neither here nor there. His was intended to serve as an example of an accomplished continuo player, using nails, who also is an accomplished soloist. Weiss was an accomplished continuo player who said the theorbo was generally played with nails, who also was an accomplished soloist. It goes without saying, I hope, that I'm not comparing Weiss's and Stephen's skills here B) The question is whether Weiss used nails, I assume you will agree that we'll never know. and I maintain that the comments he made are inconclusive. Yes, agreed. Mathias -Original Message- From: Mathias Rösel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 December 2007 11:57 To: 'lute list' Subject: [LUTE] Re: Swanneck + loaded strings Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Mathias, I don't think we can definitely conclude from his statement no, of course, not def. that Weiss himself used nails. He might have implied it was common practice, but he doesn't say for sure that he used nails. As for the theorbo that is probable, though, IMHO. He says it's ordinairement played that way, but doesn't remark but I refrain from that horrible abuse or the like. Certainly he was employed as a continuo player, And he was known so as a marvelous accompagnist but clearly was also regarded as a special case, Regarding the theorbo, I'm not aware of another specialty besides his being fabulous. No mentioning of no-nails. one whose solo playing was highly valued as well. If he describes nail playing as 'rude', He doesn't. The quote bears on the sound of the theorbo as resulting from ordinarily using nails. He says if you come close the sound is coarse and rude because it's ordinairement played with nails. That is easily imaginable, I should add. Theorbo players in an orchestra who aren't heard will soon loose their posts. I doubt if he would have enjoyed playing the lute so much. You can use nails even on a baroque lute. To name just one player who keeps long nails because his main business is continuo playing in ensembles and orchestras but who nevertheless made very good solo recordings (Kellner, Saint Luc, Golden Age etc) is Stephen Stubbs. -- Mathias -Original Message- From: Mathias Rösel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 December 2007 11:09 To: Martyn Hodgson Cc: LGS-Europe; lute list Subject: [LUTE] Re: Swanneck + loaded strings Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Weiss does mention that playing with nails is acceptable on the theorbo but not on the lute (I don't have the exact quote to hand) In his letter to Mattheson he said that the theorbo yielded a somewhat rude sound as it was ordinairement (usually, ordinarily) played with nails. From which we may conclude that Weiss had nails long enough to play the theorbo since that was one of his duties at court. Which makes me wonder as for his playing the lute... Mathias LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps OT on the lute-list either way, but I mentioned Sor and Giuliani, not baroque guitar music. Neither did I write one cannot play one kind of music with or without nails, just that you may notice the differences. Well it's simply because of your pre-conditioned approach to their music. You know (or you believe you know) that Sor wasn't using nails (i.e. because he or somebody else wrote about this or whatever). Did Piccinini, Castaldi, Robert de Visee, Weiss etc etc use nails or no nails? Can you spot that through their music? I very much doubt you can. I'm sure I cannot. I mentioned Sor and Giuliani, not theorbo music. David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo
Hi Rob, Interesting. This is all new info for me. You will be getting an instrument at 86 cm- so quite full sized. Can you describe any problems of dealing with that length and playing more soloist pieces? Isn't that quite difficult? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:58:53 - To: baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi Theo, Some confusion here. Assuming de Visee used the small theorbo, it would be strung in the old tuning but with both the first and second courses down an octave AND the whole thing moved up in pitch so that the first course is a D. This is what I meant when I said you could tune it in D, not D minor tuning. I apologise for not being explicit enough. But it is not certain that he used a small theorbo for his solo pieces, but probable. However, should you want to play Piccinini and Kapsberger as well - they would have been unlikely to play their music on a theorbo in D. But let's get things in perspective, if you want to play both Italian and French theorbo music to yourself, I wouldn't get too worked up about pitch. You say you are mainly concerned with late repertoire, so de Visee in old tuning, with the first two courses down an octave, based on D would be perfect, in my opinion. I have a theorbo arriving in January/February, but at 86 cms I will be tuning it in A, but definitely playing de Visee alongside Piccinini and Kapsberger. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hello Rob, Name's Theo :-) Thanks for the info. I assumed that the old renaissance lute tuning with a re-entrant chanterelle was still used by Visee et al, and only know Visee from recordings. Do you mean that a D minor tuning can be used on such a 14 course instrument? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:33:44 - To: baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi (what's your first name?) All the surviving solo repertoire (and I'm sure someone will correct me if am wrong) is for 6 courses on the fingerboard. Some players prefer seven for continuo reasons. At the string length you are thinking about, you could tune it in D, as in the small French theorbe de pieces. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 15:24 To: baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Theorbo I had a request to all the performers/teachers among you here. Any help would be appreciated. I am on a waiting list for a theorbo to used only for solo music, almost exclusively late (like de Visee) although it might occasionally be used to play with very small ensembles at home, or a few early pieces at some time in the far future. The only points for me is to have it strung only in gut (which should not be difficult, I assume), and also on the small side (74/76 cm stoppable string length, probably 8+6.) My hands are not small, but used to 68/70 length, and I am concerned that anything too big will be a problem for me. The model will be Sellas, a multi-ribbed version. Final pitch to play at is not an issue, since I am on my own for that.. If there are any issues I should think about, or watch out for regarding string length or string grouping (like 7+7?), please do let me know, as I have the time now to discuss change details, and I only know baroque lute- so I am a total theorbo newbie. Thanks all! -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- --
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo
I think there are more theorbo players on the main lute list, Theo, so you might get more feedback there. Everyone is different, of course, and what works for me might not work for you. I found the larger one easier in every respect - musically and physically. Rob www.rmguitar.info _ From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 17:37 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Thanks for that. Musically, that extra sound you mention is a very clear example, and I can follow that. But also fingering wise? In other words, did your fingers feel OK with that length in solo work as well? 76cm I can cope with the first frets; but 86 mentally seems a whole other ball game in those positions... Theo _ From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:12:59 - To: 'T. Diehl-Peshkur' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Everything is difficult. Getting out of bed is very difficult. Is a large theorbo more difficult than a small one? Well, I used to have both a large 86cms theorbo and a small French one at 76cms at the same time. I actually found the larger one easier. Why, you might well ask? I'm not sure. Maybe the extra resonance helped the music breathe more, and gave me seemingly more time to move around. The small one felt more like a lute or a classical guitar (although with more strings). I sold the small one eventually. The large one was on loan to me from an institution I was teaching at. I no longer teach there, and am looking forward to a new theorbo arriving in a couple of months. I think the French repertoire sounds great on large theorbos, but don't think the Italian repertoire sounds as good on small ones. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 17:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi Rob, Interesting. This is all new info for me. You will be getting an instrument at 86 cm- so quite full sized. Can you describe any problems of dealing with that length and playing more soloist pieces? Isn't that quite difficult? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:58:53 - To: baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi Theo, Some confusion here. Assuming de Visee used the small theorbo, it would be strung in the old tuning but with both the first and second courses down an octave AND the whole thing moved up in pitch so that the first course is a D. This is what I meant when I said you could tune it in D, not D minor tuning. I apologise for not being explicit enough. But it is not certain that he used a small theorbo for his solo pieces, but probable. However, should you want to play Piccinini and Kapsberger as well - they would have been unlikely to play their music on a theorbo in D. But let's get things in perspective, if you want to play both Italian and French theorbo music to yourself, I wouldn't get too worked up about pitch. You say you are mainly concerned with late repertoire, so de Visee in old tuning, with the first two courses down an octave, based on D would be perfect, in my opinion. I have a theorbo arriving in January/February, but at 86 cms I will be tuning it in A, but definitely playing de Visee alongside Piccinini and Kapsberger. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hello Rob, Name's Theo :-) Thanks for the info. I assumed that the old renaissance lute tuning with a re-entrant chanterelle was still used by Visee et al, and only know Visee from recordings. Do you mean that a D minor tuning can be used on such a 14 course instrument? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:33:44 - To: baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi (what's your first name?) All the surviving solo repertoire (and I'm sure someone will correct me if am wrong) is for 6 courses on the fingerboard. Some players prefer seven for continuo reasons. At the string length you are thinking about, you could tune it in D, as in the small French theorbe de pieces. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 15:24 To: baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Theorbo I had a request to all the performers/teachers among you here. Any help would be appreciated. I am on a waiting list for a theorbo to used only for solo music, almost exclusively late (like de Visee) although it might occasionally be used to play
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo
Music written for a big instrument tends to take the size into account. There aren't a lot of big left-hand stretches in the Italian theorbo music I've played. I don't know much about the French repertoire. On Dec 8, 2007, at 9:04 AM, T. Diehl-Peshkur wrote: Interesting. This is all new info for me. You will be getting an instrument at 86 cm- so quite full sized. Can you describe any problems of dealing with that length and playing more soloist pieces? Isn't that quite difficult? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo
Hi (what's your first name?) All the surviving solo repertoire (and I'm sure someone will correct me if am wrong) is for 6 courses on the fingerboard. Some players prefer seven for continuo reasons. At the string length you are thinking about, you could tune it in D, as in the small French theorbe de pieces. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 15:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Theorbo I had a request to all the performers/teachers among you here. Any help would be appreciated. I am on a waiting list for a theorbo to used only for solo music, almost exclusively late (like de Visee) although it might occasionally be used to play with very small ensembles at home, or a few early pieces at some time in the far future. The only points for me is to have it strung only in gut (which should not be difficult, I assume), and also on the small side (74/76 cm stoppable string length, probably 8+6.) My hands are not small, but used to 68/70 length, and I am concerned that anything too big will be a problem for me. The model will be Sellas, a multi-ribbed version. Final pitch to play at is not an issue, since I am on my own for that.. If there are any issues I should think about, or watch out for regarding string length or string grouping (like 7+7?), please do let me know, as I have the time now to discuss change details, and I only know baroque lute- so I am a total theorbo newbie. Thanks all! -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Theorbo
I had a request to all the performers/teachers among you here. Any help would be appreciated. I am on a waiting list for a theorbo to used only for solo music, almost exclusively late (like de Visee) although it might occasionally be used to play with very small ensembles at home, or a few early pieces at some time in the far future. The only points for me is to have it strung only in gut (which should not be difficult, I assume), and also on the small side (74/76 cm stoppable string length, probably 8+6.) My hands are not small, but used to 68/70 length, and I am concerned that anything too big will be a problem for me. The model will be Sellas, a multi-ribbed version. Final pitch to play at is not an issue, since I am on my own for that.. If there are any issues I should think about, or watch out for regarding string length or string grouping (like 7+7?), please do let me know, as I have the time now to discuss change details, and I only know baroque lute- so I am a total theorbo newbie. Thanks all! -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo
Hello Rob, Name's Theo :-) Thanks for the info. I assumed that the old renaissance lute tuning with a re-entrant chanterelle was still used by Visee et al, and only know Visee from recordings. Do you mean that a D minor tuning can be used on such a 14 course instrument? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:33:44 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi (what's your first name?) All the surviving solo repertoire (and I'm sure someone will correct me if am wrong) is for 6 courses on the fingerboard. Some players prefer seven for continuo reasons. At the string length you are thinking about, you could tune it in D, as in the small French theorbe de pieces. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 15:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Theorbo I had a request to all the performers/teachers among you here. Any help would be appreciated. I am on a waiting list for a theorbo to used only for solo music, almost exclusively late (like de Visee) although it might occasionally be used to play with very small ensembles at home, or a few early pieces at some time in the far future. The only points for me is to have it strung only in gut (which should not be difficult, I assume), and also on the small side (74/76 cm stoppable string length, probably 8+6.) My hands are not small, but used to 68/70 length, and I am concerned that anything too big will be a problem for me. The model will be Sellas, a multi-ribbed version. Final pitch to play at is not an issue, since I am on my own for that.. If there are any issues I should think about, or watch out for regarding string length or string grouping (like 7+7?), please do let me know, as I have the time now to discuss change details, and I only know baroque lute- so I am a total theorbo newbie. Thanks all! -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo
www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 17:13 To: 'T. Diehl-Peshkur' Subject: RE: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Everything is difficult. Getting out of bed is very difficult. Is a large theorbo more difficult than a small one? Well, I used to have both a large 86cms theorbo and a small French one at 76cms at the same time. I actually found the larger one easier. Why, you might well ask? I'm not sure. Maybe the extra resonance helped the music breathe more, and gave me seemingly more time to move around. The small one felt more like a lute or a classical guitar (although with more strings). I sold the small one eventually. The large one was on loan to me from an institution I was teaching at. I no longer teach there, and am looking forward to a new theorbo arriving in a couple of months. I think the French repertoire sounds great on large theorbos, but don't think the Italian repertoire sounds as good on small ones. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 17:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi Rob, Interesting. This is all new info for me. You will be getting an instrument at 86 cm- so quite full sized. Can you describe any problems of dealing with that length and playing more soloist pieces? Isn't that quite difficult? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:58:53 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi Theo, Some confusion here. Assuming de Visee used the small theorbo, it would be strung in the old tuning but with both the first and second courses down an octave AND the whole thing moved up in pitch so that the first course is a D. This is what I meant when I said you could tune it in D, not D minor tuning. I apologise for not being explicit enough. But it is not certain that he used a small theorbo for his solo pieces, but probable. However, should you want to play Piccinini and Kapsberger as well - they would have been unlikely to play their music on a theorbo in D. But let's get things in perspective, if you want to play both Italian and French theorbo music to yourself, I wouldn't get too worked up about pitch. You say you are mainly concerned with late repertoire, so de Visee in old tuning, with the first two courses down an octave, based on D would be perfect, in my opinion. I have a theorbo arriving in January/February, but at 86 cms I will be tuning it in A, but definitely playing de Visee alongside Piccinini and Kapsberger. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 16:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hello Rob, Name's Theo :-) Thanks for the info. I assumed that the old renaissance lute tuning with a re-entrant chanterelle was still used by Visee et al, and only know Visee from recordings. Do you mean that a D minor tuning can be used on such a 14 course instrument? Thanks, Theo From: Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:33:44 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Theorbo Hi (what's your first name?) All the surviving solo repertoire (and I'm sure someone will correct me if am wrong) is for 6 courses on the fingerboard. Some players prefer seven for continuo reasons. At the string length you are thinking about, you could tune it in D, as in the small French theorbe de pieces. Rob www.rmguitar.info -Original Message- From: T. Diehl-Peshkur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 December 2007 15:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Theorbo I had a request to all the performers/teachers among you here. Any help would be appreciated. I am on a waiting list for a theorbo to used only for solo music, almost exclusively late (like de Visee) although it might occasionally be used to play with very small ensembles at home, or a few early pieces at some time in the far future. The only points for me is to have it strung only in gut (which should not be difficult, I assume), and also on the small side (74/76 cm stoppable string length, probably 8+6.) My hands are not small, but used to 68/70 length, and I am concerned that anything too big will be a problem for me. The model will be Sellas, a multi-ribbed version. Final pitch to play at is not an issue, since I am on my own for that.. If there are any issues I should think about, or watch out for regarding string length or string grouping (like 7+7?), please do let me know, as I have the time now to discuss change details, and I only know baroque lute- so I am a total theorbo newbie. Thanks all! -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- --
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone Theorbo and Guitar variants
Interesting idea... trying to imagine the chords in my head. So are all the bass courses of your theorbo a 4th lower? Down to a very low D? And what kind of string is on the 14th course to make that note? Kevin - Original Message From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 6:46:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Double Meantone Theorbo and Guitar variants 7 fretted course theorbo in G single reentrant g d' a e B G D Double reentrant g d a e B G D Guitar in D d' a e B G or g other variants possible including an open F-Shap string. A theorbo a Tone higher--though for this temperament I prefer slightly the G version. 6 Fretted coursed have the option to tune the upper strings like the bass viol. 8 Fretted can have a D and a C which is good for later baroque music Other variants are possible--A fretted low C is excellent gives a fuller C Major chord as well a a true low D Flat. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone Theorbo and Guitar variants
On the archlute the 4th and 5th course are down a half step, F goes to E and C goes to B If you have seven fretted, the seventh is better at D or C, I use mainly D On the Theorbo in G--IMHO better for 17th c. music--the same is true, fourth and fifth courses down a half step. That places all the best thirds on a good fret, except the G sharp which is played higher. I have 8 on the finger board, and I tune the 6th and seventh D and C, but if you have 7 fretted, D is good, if you have six fretted the lowest fretted note is G and of course you may tune your open diapasons according to key. Both single reentrant and double reentrant have their advantages, but G tuning is a bit better than A tuning. Double reentrant has a terrific melow sound, single reentrant gives fuller chords except for C major and F major where the third of the chord is in unison The similarity with the gamba gives you very fine chords and scales. It is like one instrument. Also, the tuning is great for the Vivaldi Concerto in D--which I have played on the mandolin in that tuning, so I tried it on the archlute, then started in on the temperament. Have to play the G sharps up in the concerto though, or set the first fret to all sharps. dt dt At 05:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote: Interesting idea... trying to imagine the chords in my head. So are all the bass courses of your theorbo a 4th lower? Down to a very low D? And what kind of string is on the 14th course to make that note? Kevin - Original Message From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 6:46:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Double Meantone Theorbo and Guitar variants 7 fretted course theorbo in G single reentrant g d' a e B G D Double reentrant g d a e B G D Guitar in D d' a e B G or g other variants possible including an open F-Shap string. A theorbo a Tone higher--though for this temperament I prefer slightly the G version. 6 Fretted coursed have the option to tune the upper strings like the bass viol. 8 Fretted can have a D and a C which is good for later baroque music Other variants are possible--A fretted low C is excellent gives a fuller C Major chord as well a a true low D Flat. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Re: Double Meantone Theorbo and Guitar variants
Correction: 7 and 8 to D and C I have 8 on the finger board, and I tune the 6th and seventh D and C, but if you have 7 fretted, D is good, if you have six fretted the lowest fretted note is G and of course you may tune your open diapasons according to key. Both single reentrant and double reentrant have their advantages, but G tuning is a bit better than A tuning. Double reentrant has a terrific melow sound, single reentrant gives fuller chords except for C major and F major where the third of the chord is in unison The similarity with the gamba gives you very fine chords and scales. It is like one instrument. Also, the tuning is great for the Vivaldi Concerto in D--which I have played on the mandolin in that tuning, so I tried it on the archlute, then started in on the temperament. Have to play the G sharps up in the concerto though, or set the first fret to all sharps. dt dt At 05:50 PM 11/6/2007, you wrote: Interesting idea... trying to imagine the chords in my head. So are all the bass courses of your theorbo a 4th lower? Down to a very low D? And what kind of string is on the 14th course to make that note? Kevin - Original Message From: David Tayler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 6:46:46 PM Subject: [LUTE] Double Meantone Theorbo and Guitar variants 7 fretted course theorbo in G single reentrant g d' a e B G D Double reentrant g d a e B G D Guitar in D d' a e B G or g other variants possible including an open F-Shap string. A theorbo a Tone higher--though for this temperament I prefer slightly the G version. 6 Fretted coursed have the option to tune the upper strings like the bass viol. 8 Fretted can have a D and a C which is good for later baroque music Other variants are possible--A fretted low C is excellent gives a fuller C Major chord as well a a true low D Flat. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[LUTE] Theorbo
Hi guys, I did something interesting today, I took the first six string tunings of a Theorbo and tuned my Guitar to it. I recorded a little 59 second intro. Ya'll can check it out here: http://joshuahorn.com/TheorboGuitar.mp3 -- Joshua E. Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: theorbo strings
Nigel I agree with Ed, it takes a few months for Pistoy an Venice to come up/down to their final thickness. The more supple a string, the more it will finally stretch and end up slightly thinner. The surface texture will also change slightly over that period, so that such a string may improve even over a year or so. Ed was speaking about the advantage of low tension-thinner strings, just a few weeks ago. Perhaps that is another area to investigate, but I think it means playing closer to the bridge. I have not tried that myself, so I really just throw that out as a suggestion. Just a few weeks ago, I heard a young player with a lute strung in gut; and to me it sounded excellent. The player was completely new to gut and could not stand the touch or the sound of it. I think it is like many things, you come to expect a particular feel and sound, and anythig which is slightly different seems abnormal (just think of people's habits with tea and coffee). Regards Anthony Le 24 oct. 07 à 00:08, Edward Martin a écrit : Nigel, That is interesting, that a 1.24 and 1.12 string seem too thick, as on my much shorter baroque lute, 13 course with a bass rider, I use a 2.0 for the 13th course! Perhaps you are unaccustomed with the use of gut, and it sounds tubby to your ear. Give it 10 days to 2 weeks. After the gut settles in, it does tend to sound clearer, after stretching. After 2 weeks, if you are still dissatisfied, you could try metal, such as a gimped string. When I switched to gut, about 12 years ago, my baroque lutes sounded tubby, but after one gets used to it, and also knows how to play it, it sounds better. With a major change in string material, a change in your perception of clarity of sound will come. My 2 cents worth. ed At 11:24 PM 10/23/2007 +0200, Nigel Solomon wrote: I have just put gut strings on the long basses on my theorbo (170 cm), they all sound great except the 13th and 14th courses which sound a bit tubby The diameter is 1.24 (14th) and 1.12 (13th) (4 kg per string) . Perhaps they are a bit thick, should I use some sort of loaded gut for the bottom 2? Nigel To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57 PM Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
