[VIHUELA] Where to end?
Monica Hall escribio: The point is (I think) that Murcia's music, and for that matter most other baroque guitar music, isn't intended for one method of stringing rather than another. Do we know anything about his intensions with regard to tuning? At least we may assume that he used some method of stringing himself. In out time there has been a lot of disagreement about Murcia's tuning, but that does not say that he would not have cared. It is arranged in such a way that it can be conveniently played on a 5-course instrument and in a way that makes the best use of the limitations which having only 5 courses imposes. It relies on the ambiguous tone quality of the instrument to create the desired effect. What ambiguous tone quality? Arguments about whether the music conforms to the rules of music theory, and the idea that you can leave out one string of a course or strike it in such a way the emphasis falls on one or other string are futile. Why futile? The idea that campanela use of the low courses would point at re-entrant tunings is mere speculation. I think that it grossly underestimates the capacities of the 17th century guitarist. With bourdons you can have it all, bass and treble. Just a matter of an appropriate playing technique. That's not what it is all about Then what is 'it' all about? The whole concept of implied understanding of the intensions of the composer, even if the bass rises above the treble, smells so 'new-agy' to me. Lex -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Lex has a reasonable point in suggesting that Murcia probably had a particular tuning in mind. If we are aiming to try and recapture the sounds these early players made and heard this surely ought to be the focus of our search. With regard to disjointed part writing indicating a particular tuning, this has been the topic of long threads earlier. For such an peculiar instrument as the early guitar, conclusions based simply on the idea that if a line jumps an octave it must point to a particular stringing seem doubtful. String properties must also be taken into account when considering such a chimera as an octave string on the 3rd course. MH --- On Fri, 4/2/11, Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl wrote: From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl Subject: [VIHUELA] Where to end? To: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 10:49 Monica Hall escribio: The point is (I think) that Murcia's music, and for that matter most other baroque guitar music, isn't intended for one method of stringing rather than another. Do we know anything about his intensions with regard to tuning? At least we may assume that he used some method of stringing himself. In out time there has been a lot of disagreement about Murcia's tuning, but that does not say that he would not have cared. It is arranged in such a way that it can be conveniently played on a 5-course instrument and in a way that makes the best use of the limitations which having only 5 courses imposes. It relies on the ambiguous tone quality of the instrument to create the desired effect. What ambiguous tone quality? Arguments about whether the music conforms to the rules of music theory, and the idea that you can leave out one string of a course or strike it in such a way the emphasis falls on one or other string are futile. Why futile? The idea that campanela use of the low courses would point at re-entrant tunings is mere speculation. I think that it grossly underestimates the capacities of the 17th century guitarist. With bourdons you can have it all, bass and treble. Just a matter of an appropriate playing technique. That's not what it is all about Then what is 'it' all about? The whole concept of implied understanding of the intensions of the composer, even if the bass rises above the treble, smells so 'new-agy' to me. Lex -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Do we know anything about his intensions with regard to tuning? The answer is no. This new manuscript does include some notes explaining how the guitar, violin, harp, tiple and bandurria can be tuned to play together, but they are not coherant enough to work out the stringing and may not have been added by Murcia anyway. The only thing that is clear is that the 3rd course of the guitar is in unison with the lowest string of the violin - which we all know anyway. At least we may assume that he used some method of stringing himself. In out time there has been a lot of disagreement about Murcia's tuning, but that does not say that he would not have cared. Well - everyone has their own ideas based on their own arbitrary and subjective analysis of the music. But we simply do not know whether he cared or had any strong feelings on the subject. If he did these are just as likely to have been based on what worked best in practice rather than on some notional idea as to what was theoretically correct. And we also don't know if he chose to use different methods of stringing during his lifetime. Or even as Frank Koonce seems to think for different pieces. What ambiguous tone quality? How often do you listen to other people playing this music? Arguments about whether the music conforms to the rules of music theory, and the idea that you can leave out one string of a course or strike it in such a way the emphasis falls on one or other string are futile. Why futile? Because they don't work in practice and in the end they prove nothing except that different players today have different conceptions about the way the music should sound. They assume that when they play everyone hears the music in exactly the way that they do and likes what they hear. The idea that campanela use of the low courses would point at re-entrant tunings is mere speculation. I think that it grossly underestimates the capacities of the 17th century guitarist. Yet again - re-entrant tunings have nothing to do with campanelas. What Sanz says is This is the reason - when making trills, slurs and other ornaments with the left hand, the bourdon interferes with them because it is a thick string and the other is thin, and therefore the hand cannot stop them evenly, and hold down the thick string as easily as two thin strings. Presumably he was a competant player - at least you have no evidence to the contrary. With bourdons you can have it all, bass and treble. Just a matter of an appropriate playing technique. So you say - but what evidence do you have that 17th century guitarists wanted it all and cultivated this technique? It is you, and other classical guitarists who want to have it all. The rest of us don't problem with the idea that an instrument doesn't have to have a bass register to be effective. The whole concept of implied understanding of the intensions of the composer, even if the bass rises above the treble, smells so 'new-agy' Don't know anything about New aginess but the fact is that with octave stringing the bass rises above the treble anyway. In other words - the re-entrant effect is constant. Monica -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
I think there is an ambiguity in the guitar's sound. Anecdotal evidence is in the list archives... How often has so-and-so said that a performer did use bordones, while another said he/she didn't, while yet another couldn't tell? I've seen that on this list a few times. __ From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu; Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 6:14:36 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Where to end? Lex has a reasonable point in suggesting that Murcia probably had a particular tuning in mind. If we are aiming to try and recapture the sounds these early players made and heard this surely ought to be the focus of our search. With regard to disjointed part writing indicating a particular tuning, this has been the topic of long threads earlier. For such an peculiar instrument as the early guitar, conclusions based simply on the idea that if a line jumps an octave it must point to a particular stringing seem doubtful. String properties must also be taken into account when considering such a chimera as an octave string on the 3rd course. MH --- On Fri, 4/2/11, Lex Eisenhardt [1]eisenha...@planet.nl wrote: From: Lex Eisenhardt [2]eisenha...@planet.nl Subject: [VIHUELA] Where to end? To: Vihuelalist [3]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 10:49 Monica Hall escribio: The point is (I think) that Murcia's music, and for that matter most other baroque guitar music, isn't intended for one method of stringing rather than another. Do we know anything about his intensions with regard to tuning? At least we may assume that he used some method of stringing himself. In out time there has been a lot of disagreement about Murcia's tuning, but that does not say that he would not have cared. It is arranged in such a way that it can be conveniently played on a 5-course instrument and in a way that makes the best use of the limitations which having only 5 courses imposes. It relies on the ambiguous tone quality of the instrument to create the desired effect. What ambiguous tone quality? Arguments about whether the music conforms to the rules of music theory, and the idea that you can leave out one string of a course or strike it in such a way the emphasis falls on one or other string are futile. Why futile? The idea that campanela use of the low courses would point at re-entrant tunings is mere speculation. I think that it grossly underestimates the capacities of the 17th century guitarist. With bourdons you can have it all, bass and treble. Just a matter of an appropriate playing technique. That's not what it is all about Then what is 'it' all about? The whole concept of implied understanding of the intensions of the composer, even if the bass rises above the treble, smells so 'new-agy' to me. Lex -- To get on or off this list see list information at [1][4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:eisenha...@planet.nl 2. mailto:eisenha...@planet.nl 3. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Yet again - re-entrant tunings have nothing to do with campanelas. What Sanz says is This is the reason - when making trills, slurs and other ornaments with the left hand, the bourdon interferes with them because it is a thick string and the other is thin, and therefore the hand cannot stop them evenly, and hold down the thick string as easily as two thin strings. I have often wondered about that, because right before that, Sanz says: pero si alguno quiera puntear con primor, y dulAS:ura, - y usar de las campanelas -, que es el modo moderno con que aora se compone, no salen bien los bordones Followed by this is the reason... as above, but it is not obvious (to me at least) what ornaments have to do with campanelas..so is it not at least a possibility that he is referring to campanelas and re-entrant tuning? Peter -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
What ambiguous tone quality?
How often do you listen to other people playing this music?
Quite often. The sound of the the instrument itself is not ambiguous; I get
the impression that different players make different choices. To put it like
this, some are better at presenting the polyphony than others. Just like it
is on the lute or other plucked instruments.
Why futile?
Because they don't work in practice and in the end they prove nothing
except that different players today
have different conceptions about the way the music should sound. They
assume that when they play everyone hears the music in exactly the way
that they
do and likes what they hear.
The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that if music has two or
more voices, which is the often the case with Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visée
etc., there is a top melody and a bass.
Also in Visée's music there is a frequent double use of the fourth course,
sometimes it is a treble and more often it is the bass. I doubt if players
today have a very different approach to that now, compared to then.
Yet again - re-entrant tunings have nothing to do with campanelas. What
Sanz says is
This is the reason - when making trills, slurs and other ornaments with
the left hand, the bourdon interferes with them because it is a thick
string and the other is thin, and therefore the hand cannot stop them
evenly, and hold down the thick string as easily as two thin strings.
That's only half of the story:
'if anyone wishes to play with skill and sweetness and to use campanelas,
which is now the modern way of composing, bourdons do not sound as well as
do only thin strings'
With
bourdons you can have it all, bass and treble. Just a matter of an
appropriate playing technique.
So you say - but what evidence do you have that 17th century guitarists
wanted it all and cultivated this technique? It is you, and other
classical guitarists who want to have it all. The rest of us don't
problem with the idea that an instrument doesn't have to have a bass
register to be effective.
It seems that, on the other hand, some amateur players of the baroque guitar
('the rest of us'?) are afraid of the difficulties. Re-entrant tuning seems
to offer a hiding-place.
This attitude may even make sense, historically. But most likely not for
some of the more important composers.
Don't know anything about New aginess but the fact is that with octave
stringing the bass rises above the treble anyway. In other words - the
re-entrant effect is constant.
The high octaves which accompany the bourdons? That is true, just like in
polyphony on the lute.
Lex
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
My experience with Sanz and fully re-entrant tuning is that there are two voices, but not necessarily divided into melody and bass. Why can't two sopranos or tenors sing together? The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that if music has two or more voices, which is the often the case with Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visee etc., there is a top melody and a bass. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Lex,
I think where I part company with you here is in thinking too
academically about part writing for this most peculiar and idiomatic of
instruments and expecting strict rules of counterpoint to be adhered to
(eg as summarised around this time by Fux).
You write: 'The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that
if music has two or more voices, which is the often the case with
Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visee etc., there is a top melody and a bass.'
It has been previously remarked (not only by me!) that much 17th
century 5 course guitar music is more a melodic line sprinkled with
occassional chords - in fact rather closer to the sort of violin
writing of Biber, Schmelzer, Matteis et al than to contemporary part
writing on the lute.
One does indeed find contrapuntal passages, or responses, scattered
throughout such works but generally not a consistent two part treble
and bass throughout.
Martyn
PS As a bit of an exception, I would agree though that much of De
Visee's guitar output is in two distinct parts - but isn't this simply
because the pieces were often conceived for theorbo (or keyboard?) as
the staff notation versions?
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl wrote:
From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
To: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 13:24
What ambiguous tone quality?
How often do you listen to other people playing this music?
Quite often. The sound of the the instrument itself is not ambiguous; I
get the impression that different players make different choices. To
put it like this, some are better at presenting the polyphony than
others. Just like it is on the lute or other plucked instruments.
Why futile?
Because they don't work in practice and in the end they prove nothing
except that different players today
have different conceptions about the way the music should
sound. They
assume that when they play everyone hears the music in exactly the
way that they
do and likes what they hear.
The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that if music has
two or more voices, which is the often the case with Foscarini,
Bartolotti, Visee etc., there is a top melody and a bass.
Also in Visee's music there is a frequent double use of the fourth
course, sometimes it is a treble and more often it is the bass. I doubt
if players today have a very different approach to that now, compared
to then.
Yet again - re-entrant tunings have nothing to do with
campanelas. What Sanz says is
This is the reason - when making trills, slurs and other ornaments
with the left hand, the bourdon interferes with them because it is a
thick string and the other is thin, and therefore the hand cannot stop
them evenly, and hold down the thick string as easily as two thin
strings.
That's only half of the story:
'if anyone wishes to play with skill and sweetness and to use
campanelas, which is now the modern way of composing, bourdons do not
sound as well as do only thin strings'
With
bourdons you can have it all, bass and treble. Just a matter of an
appropriate playing technique.
So you say - but what evidence do you have that 17th century
guitarists
wanted it all and cultivated this technique? It is you, and other
classical guitarists who want to have it all. The rest of us don't
problem with the idea that an instrument doesn't have to have a bass
register to be effective.
It seems that, on the other hand, some amateur players of the baroque
guitar ('the rest of us'?) are afraid of the difficulties. Re-entrant
tuning seems to offer a hiding-place.
This attitude may even make sense, historically. But most likely not
for some of the more important composers.
Don't know anything about New aginess but the fact is that with
octave stringing the bass rises above the treble anyway. In other
words - the re-entrant effect is constant.
The high octaves which accompany the bourdons? That is true, just like
in polyphony on the lute.
Lex
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Well, I was very careful to say 'which is often the case with Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visee etc.' We seem to agree on Visee (most of his guitar works are probably not conceived on other instruments though) and a quick look on the many pizzicato works of Foscarini and Bartolotti will reveal that there is true polyphony in those. Same of course with Guerau, for example. Indeed there are other genres/compositional strategies, as you describe, in other works of these same composers. But these cannot serv as pars pro toto. Probably these different genres were played on the same instrument, by the same player. rgds, Lex Lex, I think where I part company with you here is in thinking too academically about part writing for this most peculiar and idiomatic of instruments and expecting strict rules of counterpoint to be adhered to (eg as summarised around this time by Fux). You write: 'The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that if music has two or more voices, which is the often the case with Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visee etc., there is a top melody and a bass.' It has been previously remarked (not only by me!) that much 17th century 5 course guitar music is more a melodic line sprinkled with occassional chords - in fact rather closer to the sort of violin writing of Biber, Schmelzer, Matteis et al than to contemporary part writing on the lute. One does indeed find contrapuntal passages, or responses, scattered throughout such works but generally not a consistent two part treble and bass throughout. Martyn PS As a bit of an exception, I would agree though that much of De Visee's guitar output is in two distinct parts - but isn't this simply because the pieces were often conceived for theorbo (or keyboard?) as the staff notation versions? --- On Fri, 4/2/11, Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl wrote -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
We seem to agree on Visee (most of his guitar works are probably not conceived on other instruments though) and a quick look on the many pizzicato works of Foscarini and Bartolotti will reveal that there is true polyphony in those. Same of course with Guerau, for example. I don't think there is very much polyphony in the true sense of the word i.e.continuous 2 or 3-part writing in Foscarini or Bartolotti (or Corbetta for that matter). And where there is it doesn't work very effectively. I wonder if you have tried to make sense of the Fantasia on p.112 of Foscarini's book. After the statement and response of the opening motif it is difficult to construct the counterpoint either when playing the music or on paper. I may say also that I spent a lot of time studying your attempts to convert the Bartolotti gigue in G minor (p.98) into continuous 3-part counterpoint and it makes no sense because the guitar is not capable of sustaining the notes in the way you suggest. I listened to you playing it on your CD over and over again (I know you are not using a bordon on the 5th course but that doesn't make a lot of difference) and I could only hear it as a single line. Even playing it on the keyboard with an organ stop isn't very effective. As Martin has said, most baroque guitar music consists of elaborate passage work punctuated with strmmed chords and passages of 3-part harmony which is usually invertible. I assume that you are familiar with the concept of invertible counterpoint. What you leave out of your equation is the fact that notes on the 4th and 5th courses will always be doubled in the upper octave and this appreciably alters the voice leading. You can see an example of this in my article about Bartolotti - example 14, on p, 89 where the changing note figure on the 4th and 5th courses belongs to the inner part. Indeed there are other genres/compositional strategies, as you describe, in other works of these same composers. But these cannot serv as pars pro toto. Probably these different genres were played on the same instrument, by the same player. I don't know what you mean by this but it seems to me that your approach to the music is obscurantist. You are only interested in trying to analyse it and force it into some kind of straight jacket. It is an pseudo-intellectual exercise in which the letter is more important to you than the spirit in which it was written. Monica rgds, Lex Lex, I think where I part company with you here is in thinking too academically about part writing for this most peculiar and idiomatic of instruments and expecting strict rules of counterpoint to be adhered to (eg as summarised around this time by Fux). You write: 'The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that if music has two or more voices, which is the often the case with Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visee etc., there is a top melody and a bass.' It has been previously remarked (not only by me!) that much 17th century 5 course guitar music is more a melodic line sprinkled with occassional chords - in fact rather closer to the sort of violin writing of Biber, Schmelzer, Matteis et al than to contemporary part writing on the lute. One does indeed find contrapuntal passages, or responses, scattered throughout such works but generally not a consistent two part treble and bass throughout. Martyn PS As a bit of an exception, I would agree though that much of De Visee's guitar output is in two distinct parts - but isn't this simply because the pieces were often conceived for theorbo (or keyboard?) as the staff notation versions? --- On Fri, 4/2/11, Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl wrote -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Well the whole passage actually reads If anyone wishes to play with skill and sweetness, and to use campanelas, which is now the modern way of composing, bourdons do not sound as well as do only thin strings on both the fourths and fifths, of which method I have had much experience. This is the reason - when making trills, slurs and other ornaments with the left hand, the bourdon interferes with them because it is a thick string and the other is thin, and therefore the hand cannot stop them evenly, and hold down the thick string as easily as two thin strings. I think the point is that Sanz does not say that the re-entrant tuning is best because it eliminates octave doubling. He is describing the kind of music, which will include campanellas which he thinks sounds better without bordons. The idea that you can solve the problem by either omitting the bordon or with some sort of other technique is beside the point because the problem is caused by having strings of unequal thickness. One way or another the bordon gets in the way and prevents you from playing with skill and sweetness. Monica - Original Message - From: Peter Kooiman pe...@crispu.com To: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:05 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Where to end? Yet again - re-entrant tunings have nothing to do with campanelas. What Sanz says is This is the reason - when making trills, slurs and other ornaments with the left hand, the bourdon interferes with them because it is a thick string and the other is thin, and therefore the hand cannot stop them evenly, and hold down the thick string as easily as two thin strings. I have often wondered about that, because right before that, Sanz says: pero si alguno quiera puntear con primor, y dulAS:ura, - y usar de las campanelas -, que es el modo moderno con que aora se compone, no salen bien los bordones Followed by this is the reason... as above, but it is not obvious (to me at least) what ornaments have to do with campanelas..so is it not at least a possibility that he is referring to campanelas and re-entrant tuning? Peter -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
My experience with Sanz and fully re-entrant tuning is that there are two voices, but not necessarily divided into melody and bass. Why can't two sopranos or tenors sing together? Exactly. The fact that the parts cross is acceptable and anyone used to listening to baroque guitar music or indeed other contrapuntal music should have no problem with that. Try looking and listening to Bach's unaccompanied violin music. Also if you listen to polyphonic music by the likes of Victoria where there are two treble parts they will cross all the time so that the two together create a different continuous melodic line than what appears on paper. The idea that the parts must always be separate and never overlap is a curious concept to me. Monica The one side is what we think we hear. The other is that if music has two or more voices, which is the often the case with Foscarini, Bartolotti, Visee etc., there is a top melody and a bass. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
I don't think there is very much polyphony in the true sense of the word i.e.continuous 2 or 3-part writing in Foscarini or Bartolotti (or Corbetta for that matter). And where there is it doesn't work very effectively. I take polyphony as different of Renaissance counterpoint. As a texture consisting of two or more independent melodic voices. Even the so-called brise type of writing (in certain works of Bartolotti and Corbetta) can be seen as polyfonic because it is not in one (accompanied or unaccompanied) voice. I may say also that I spent a lot of time studying your attempts to convert the Bartolotti gigue in G minor (p.98) into continuous 3-part counterpoint and it makes no sense because the guitar is not capable of sustaining the notes in the way you suggest. Who says it should be judged as continuous counterpoint? Sustaining every note is not relevant. What matters is that the voices can be heard (and brought out) as independent lines. As Martin has said, most baroque guitar music consists of elaborate passage work punctuated with strmmed chords and passages of 3-part harmony which is usually invertible. I assume that you are familiar with the concept of invertible counterpoint. Martyn has described just one category of baroque guitar music. And yes, I am familiar with invertible counterpoint. Some intervals are 'forbidden'. It would be completely pointless to randomly 'invert' parts of the counterpoint in Foscarini, Bartolotti or de Visee in many occasions, which would happen if you leave off the bourdons. Indeed there are other genres/compositional strategies, as you describe, in other works of these same composers. But these cannot serv as pars pro toto. Probably these different genres were played on the same instrument, by the same player. I don't know what you mean by this but it seems to me that your approach to the music is obscurantist. You are only interested in trying to analyse it and force it into some kind of straight jacket. Bartolotti's gigues are so wonderfully crafted with regard to polyphony, almost as good as Froberger. But I can't blame you if you happen to hear it just as a single line, as you say yourself. There is no point in further discussion. Lex To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
I was under impression is that ALL preclassical music is essentially 2-voice, and the bass line is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. And the composing was done from bass up, not the other way around. RT From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl I don't think there is very much polyphony in the true sense of the word i.e.continuous 2 or 3-part writing in Foscarini or Bartolotti (or Corbetta for that matter). And where there is it doesn't work very effectively. I take polyphony as different of Renaissance counterpoint. As a texture consisting of two or more independent melodic voices. Even the so-called brise type of writing (in certain works of Bartolotti and Corbetta) can be seen as polyfonic because it is not in one (accompanied or unaccompanied) voice. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
I take polyphony as different of Renaissance counterpoint. As a texture consisting of two or more independent melodic voices. Even the so-called brise type of writing (in certain works of Bartolotti and Corbetta) can be seen as polyfonic because it is not in one (accompanied or unaccompanied) voice. That is stretching the definition of counterpoint to suit your own purposes. Who says it should be judged as continuous counterpoint? Sustaining every note is not relevant. What matters is that the voices can be heard (and brought out) as independent lines. Not by you anyway! Martyn has described just one category of baroque guitar music. And yes, I am familiar with invertible counterpoint. Some intervals are 'forbidden'. It would be completely pointless to randomly 'invert' parts of the counterpoint in Foscarini, Bartolotti or de Visee in many occasions, which would happen if you leave off the bourdons. Leaving aside the fact that de Visee apparently didn't use a bordon on the 5th course anyway, that is questionable as the 3-part writing tends to be on the three upper courses and some of Foscarini's attempts to write 3-part counterpoint on the lower courses are not very successful on the guitar. And as ever you are ignoring the fact that notes on the 4th and 5th course will be doubled in the upper octave. Bartolotti's gigues are so wonderfully crafted with regard to polyphony, almost as good as Froberger. But I can't blame you if you happen to hear it just as a single line, as you say yourself. All Bartolotti's music is wonderfully crafted but as I have already said the reason why I can only hear a single line is because you are not playing it in such a way that the part writing is apparent. There is no point in further discussion. There never is with you as when anyone disagrees with you you retire from the list in a fit of pique! Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
I was under impression is that ALL preclassical music is essentially 2-voice, and the bass line is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. I agree that the bass part is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. That is why it is not essential to have a bass part at all in baroque guitar music and of course unnaccompanied violin music. And the composing was done from bass up, not the other way around. That I think I would disagree with. Until the 17th century it was the tenor voice which generated the other parts. Very basically you start with a cantus firmus in the tenor and add parts above and below. But perhaps that is just another way of saying the same thing. Monica RT From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl I don't think there is very much polyphony in the true sense of the word i.e.continuous 2 or 3-part writing in Foscarini or Bartolotti (or Corbetta for that matter). And where there is it doesn't work very effectively. I take polyphony as different of Renaissance counterpoint. As a texture consisting of two or more independent melodic voices. Even the so-called brise type of writing (in certain works of Bartolotti and Corbetta) can be seen as polyfonic because it is not in one (accompanied or unaccompanied) voice. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
That is stretching the definition of counterpoint to suit your own purposes. Actually I spoke of polyphony. The definition in Grove Online is a bit longer. What matters is that the voices can be heard (and brought out) as independent lines. Not by you anyway! With all the flaws it may have, of a recording of almost 20 years old, I must say that it has its good sides. The tempo may be a little high and, indeed, it was recorded without the 5th-course bourdon. But what I hear is defenitely is polyphonic. Leaving aside the fact that de Visee apparently didn't use a bordon on the 5th course anyway, See what happens with the voice-leading if you leave off the fourth course bourdon There is no point in further discussion. There never is with you as when anyone disagrees with you you retire from the list in a fit of pique! Actually, I thought that we should not waste time discussing things which you apparently are unable to hear. Lex To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Where to end?
Dear Monica, The old idea of using a tenor as a starting point for a composition lasted well into the 17th century. Even Purcell (1659-95) dabbled with the In Nomine for viols. However, for most music, the bass had established itself as the basis of many compositions at least by the beginning of the 16th century. One has only to think of grounds like the passamezzo antico to realise that compositions were based on the bass line well before the seconda prattica of the early 17th century. I have mentioned on this list before that Diego Ortiz used the old 15th-century Spagna tenor as a bass line (not a tenor line) in his books on improvisation for the bass viol (1553). You make a fair comparison between the baroque guitar and an unaccompanied violin. The guitar does often behave as a violin, supplying a melody with suggestions of harmony, but without a melodic bass line. In this context it is worth mentioning the little 4-course guitar. When accompanying French songs, the guitar doubles the notes of the singer. With only four courses available, that seems a bit of a waste of a course, yet the songs work very well as they are written - with the guitar providing the melody and the harmony, but no bass line. Although Sanz talks about playing without bourdons for campanellas, some of his music seems to be crying out for a bass. I have in mind the Pavanas based on the alfabeto chord D, which opens with a strong melodic bass line. I have never found this piece satisfactory without bourdons, yet the piece immediately following it - lots of campanellas - does sound better without bourdons. For Sanz to write as he does, he gives the impression that he is trying to convince guitarists that bourdons are not such a good idea, yet that must mean that some guitarists used them. If everyone played the guitar without bourdons, there would be no need for him to write what he did. So too will there be players now who prefer bourdons, and they will do their best to minimise the damage bourdons cause with campanellas, just as there will be latter-day followers of Sanz, who play without bourdons, and who do what they can to cope with an emasculated bass line. I agree with you and Sanz, that bourdons don't help trills to sound good. Is it worth asking how often trills are marked on the 4th and 5th courses, and whether that may give a clue as to whether a guitarist/composer used bourdons? I'd be interested to know what you think. Best wishes, Stewart. -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Monica Hall Sent: 04 February 2011 21:25 To: Roman Turovsky Cc: Vihuelalist Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Where to end? I was under impression is that ALL preclassical music is essentially 2-voice, and the bass line is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. I agree that the bass part is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. That is why it is not essential to have a bass part at all in baroque guitar music and of course unnaccompanied violin music. And the composing was done from bass up, not the other way around. That I think I would disagree with. Until the 17th century it was the tenor voice which generated the other parts. Very basically you start with a cantus firmus in the tenor and add parts above and below. But perhaps that is just another way of saying the same thing. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
You make a fair comparison between the baroque guitar and an unaccompanied violin. The guitar does often behave as a violin, supplying a melody with suggestions of harmony, but without a melodic bass line. Well actually I used to play the violin including some unaccompanied Bach so you are not telling me anything new. In this context it is worth mentioning the little 4-course guitar. When accompanying French songs, the guitar doubles the notes of the singer. With only four courses available, that seems a bit of a waste of a course, yet the songs work very well as they are written - with the guitar providing the melody and the harmony, but no bass line. Yes they do. Do get hold of Jocelyn's CD if you can. It's delightful. Although Sanz talks about playing without bourdons for campanellas, some of his music seems to be crying out for a bass. I have in mind the Pavanas based on the alfabeto chord D, which opens with a strong melodic bass line. I have never found this piece satisfactory without bourdons, yet the piece immediately following it - lots of campanellas - does sound better without bourdons. I have no problem with the pavanas played without bourdons. Try listening to Gordon Ferries - or Chris on this list perhaps has recorded it. Just bear in mind that the opening phrase will be doubled in octaves. I think the point with Sanz is that in Spain the guitar was not actually much used as a solo instrument before he came back from Rome bursting with new ideas. In the obituary of Corbetta printed in Mercure galante there is mention of his trip to Spain - to whit Next he went to Spain where he was heard at the Court playing such things as before him had been believed impossible on the guitar. If all the Spanish ever did was strum a la Amat Corbetta would have come as a surprise to them. That's as much as I can manage tonight as it is well past my bedtime. And tomorrow is Saturday so don't expect to hear form me too early in the morning. Monica For Sanz to write as he does, he gives the impression that he is trying to convince guitarists that bourdons are not such a good idea, yet that must mean that some guitarists used them. If everyone played the guitar without bourdons, there would be no need for him to write what he did. So too will there be players now who prefer bourdons, and they will do their best to minimise the damage bourdons cause with campanellas, just as there will be latter-day followers of Sanz, who play without bourdons, and who do what they can to cope with an emasculated bass line. I agree with you and Sanz, that bourdons don't help trills to sound good. Is it worth asking how often trills are marked on the 4th and 5th courses, and whether that may give a clue as to whether a guitarist/composer used bourdons? I'd be interested to know what you think. Best wishes, Stewart. -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Monica Hall Sent: 04 February 2011 21:25 To: Roman Turovsky Cc: Vihuelalist Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Where to end? I was under impression is that ALL preclassical music is essentially 2-voice, and the bass line is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. I agree that the bass part is implied even in unaccompanied melodies. That is why it is not essential to have a bass part at all in baroque guitar music and of course unnaccompanied violin music. And the composing was done from bass up, not the other way around. That I think I would disagree with. Until the 17th century it was the tenor voice which generated the other parts. Very basically you start with a cantus firmus in the tenor and add parts above and below. But perhaps that is just another way of saying the same thing. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Where to end?
Actually I spoke of polyphony. The definition in Grove Online is a bit longer. Actually the two terms mean much the same thing - at least in England. In fact we tend to use the term polyphony more specifically to refer to music, particularly sacred music, of the 16th century and earlier rather than to an aspect of musical theory. For instance at university we studied counterpoint not polyphony although we did exercises in the style of Palestrina and Byrd. A rose by any other name etc. With all the flaws it may have, of a recording of almost 20 years old, I must say that it has its good sides. The tempo may be a little high and, indeed, it was recorded without the 5th-course bourdon. But what I hear is defenitely is polyphonic. It has always been one of my favourite recordings and still is. I can't comment on what you hear only what I hear. Leaving aside the fact that de Visee apparently didn't use a bordon on the 5th course anyway, See what happens with the voice-leading if you leave off the fourth course bourdon I have never suggested that you should... Actually, I thought that we should not waste time discussing things which you apparently are unable to hear. I didn't realize that we were. There are more profitable things which we might discuss. For example I asked a question which you haven't answered yet. To whit ... I wonder if you have tried to make sense of the Fantasia on p.112 of Foscarini's book. After the statement and response of the opening motif it is difficult to construct the counterpoint either when playing the music or on paper. But perhaps you have never tried to play it. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
