[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Stuart Walsh wrote: what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is it this: a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords? Which composers are you thinking of? The small amount of fancier music for the English guitar/guittar in the 18th century actually, literally looks like this - melodic lines - single melodic lines and then occasional chords. But five-course guitar music doesn't look like this at all. It looks like there's some kind of bass and treble - it looks like, at least, two part music. And, what's more, it sounds like it. This applies as much for Corbetta in 1643 and Bartolotti in c1655 as for Visee and Granata in the 1680s. This elaborate treble dominated style concept is a someting like modern myth. As is the idea that players would have sacrificed their bourdons for only a fistful of campanela's. Which, at the same time can be performed by making a double use of the lower courses of a bourdon tuning. Campanelas (the real ones) appear for the first time in print in Bartolotti's 1640 book. Bartolotti, as a theorbist, was probably familiar with Kapsberger's cross-string fingerings. In that sphere changing the stringing of the 4th and 5th courses of the guitar would only have been a small step. Considering the polyphonic nature of Bartolotti's music this is more likely than that he dropped his two bourdons. What bothers me is that we seem to be obliged to have an opinion on a very complexe issue, about a large and varied repertoire with many works that not many have ever played (or studied!) themselves. It is a situation which easily leads to over-simplified answers. Lex To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Well, I can only say, from my own experience and study (such as it is) that it is not a sacrifice to play without bordones. It's different, but no less rich, and certainly no sacrifice... in *my* experience. In fact, it has opened up musical possibilities, as well as technical possibilities I haven't enjoyed before, and that were only hinted at by my experience with the ukulele. This is the experience of somebody who has played the guitar and other plucked instruments in a variety of styles over a period of decades -- but not the experience of a scholar. Nonetheless, I can't emphasize enough that is it no sacrifice to play without bordones, any more than it's a sacrifice to play on six rather than 11 or 13 courses... in my experience. My addmittedly limited experience with an admittedly limited exposure to the repertoire. DISCLAIMER: I'm not taking sides here. I'm just relating my experience. __ From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl To: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 4:09:08 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again Stuart Walsh wrote: what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is it this: a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords? Which composers are you thinking of? The small amount of fancier music for the English guitar/guittar in the 18th century actually, literally looks like this - melodic lines - single melodic lines and then occasional chords. But five-course guitar music doesn't look like this at all. It looks like there's some kind of bass and treble - it looks like, at least, two part music. And, what's more, it sounds like it. This applies as much for Corbetta in 1643 and Bartolotti in c1655 as for Visee and Granata in the 1680s. This elaborate treble dominated style concept is a someting like modern myth. As is the idea that players would have sacrificed their bourdons for only a fistful of campanela's. Which, at the same time can be performed by making a double use of the lower courses of a bourdon tuning. Campanelas (the real ones) appear for the first time in print in Bartolotti's 1640 book. Bartolotti, as a theorbist, was probably familiar with Kapsberger's cross-string fingerings. In that sphere changing the stringing of the 4th and 5th courses of the guitar would only have been a small step. Considering the polyphonic nature of Bartolotti's music this is more likely than that he dropped his two bourdons. What bothers me is that we seem to be obliged to have an opinion on a very complexe issue, about a large and varied repertoire with many works that not many have ever played (or studied!) themselves. It is a situation which easily leads to over-simplified answers. 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/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
On 08/02/2011 10:09, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Stuart,
You write
'what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is it this: a
predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords? Which
composers are you thinking of?'
I don't know what others are thinking of, but I mentioned that the
similarity between much (especially Italian) guitar writing and that
for unaccompanied violin by such as Schmelzer, Biber, Matteis had
struck me some years ago. Almost all guitar composer exhibit this in
pieces from time to time but some particular ones which I recall being
examplars of the fashion were: Pellegrini(1650), Carbonchi(1640),
Pesori(1648), Coriandoli(1670), Valdambrini (1646/7), Bottazzari
(1663), Granata (various)... A good example of the practice in
operation and a interesting perspective on this style is also shed by
those few pieces which actually do have an independent bass line as
well as guitar tablature (eg Granata Op 5 of 1674 for violin, bass
violin and guitar) - the guitar 'bass' is often skeletal at best and
often non-existant whereas the guitar does double most of the
independent upper melodic line.
Well, looking at Granata's Novi Capricci Armonic Musicali: the first
few pieces have a guitar part on the left hand side (in tab) and a
score for violin and a ('viola'=bass?) part on the right. If it's
assumed that the guitar is playing along with the bass line (and
violin), nevertheless the guitar parts stand as pieces in their own
right with basic, sketchy, two-part writing (plus chords here and
there). There are passages which are just the melodic line but still
most of the writing is rudimentary two-partbut like much writing
for guitar before or since.
Stuart
Of course if anyone really wanted to push the matter and insist that a
proper through bass was always present, I suppose it might be possible
to construct a bass line (of sorts) from the lowest notes (depending on
stringing!) of the strummed chords..
Martyn
--- On Mon, 7/2/11, Stuart Walsh [1]s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh [2]s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Monica Hall [3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist [4]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Monday, 7 February, 2011, 22:22
On 07/02/2011 17:21, Monica Hall wrote:
This was my summary. It caused outrage in some quarters but I still
stand by most of it.
1. Both the conventional and re-entrant tunings were considered
appropriate for strummed music and choice of one or the other was a
matter of practical convenience.
2. The development of an elaborate treble dominated style after
1640 led to a preference for re-entrant stringing.
Monica, what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is it
this: a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords?
Which composers are you thinking of?
The small amount of fancier music for the English guitar/guittar in the
18th century actually, literally looks like this - melodic lines -
single melodic lines and then occasional chords. But five-course guitar
music doesn't look like this at all. It looks like there's some kind of
bass and treble - it looks like, at least, two part music.
If the guitar is playing in this elaborate treble dominated style (as
I am interpreting you as claiming) it would have to be in a re-entrant
stringing, wouldn't it? It couldn't lead to a preference for it?
3. Perhaps as early as the 1650s Corbetta used bourdon on the
fourth course.
4. This became the preferred method of stringing in France,
England and the Low Countries and possibly also in Italy and Spain
during the last quarter of the seventeenth and first quarter of the
eighteenth centuries.
5. Developments in the way strings were made lead to regular use
of octaves on both fourth and fifth courses and eventually to a
6-course instrument.
But you say in 1. (above) - the 'conventional' tuning? So, by that, you
don't mean octaves on fourth and fifth? You mean AA and DD?
Stuart
6. Different methods of stringing were probably used for solo
music and realizing a bass line.
7. The evidence for octave stringing on the third course is
ambiguous. Such a method of stringing would only be suitable for
strummed music.
Do I hear howls of rage in the distance?
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
[5]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:s.wa...@ntlworld.com
2. mailto:s.wa...@ntlworld.com
3. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
4. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Thank you Lex, However I believe you might have missed the point I was trying to make: these collections are so full of this melodic punctuated with full chords style that they do not just represent a few isolated examples but rather reflect a lack of interest in a full through bass line (my understanding of your position is that you believe there is almost always a proper through bass line and so you feel the need for bourdons to play it). The nice Granata examples further represent this 'insitutional' view of not over bothering about a full through bass line Martyn --- On Tue, 8/2/11, Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl wrote: From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again To: Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com, Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 10:25 I don't know what others are thinking of, but I mentioned that the similarity between much (especially Italian) guitar writing and that for unaccompanied violin by such as Schmelzer, Biber, Matteis had struck me some years ago. Almost all guitar composer exhibit this in pieces from time to time but some particular ones which I recall being examplars of the fashion were: Pellegrini(1650), Carbonchi(1640), Pesori(1648), Coriandoli(1670), Valdambrini (1646/7), Bottazzari (1663), Granata (various)... As I remarked earlier, it is probably a matter of different genres/compositional strategies. Foscarini's Gagliarda la Passionata could serve as an example of a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords. Still the bass line is implied and sometimes played. Several dances from Corbetta's 1639 book are written like that. And in some of the works of the composers you have listed there is a similar tendency. But as a description of the repertoire of the second half of the seventeenth century it definitely falls short. 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: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Hello Stuart,
Didn't you read me email quite through? - I specifically wrote about
Granata's Op 5! You'll see I take it as a good example of not
overbothering about a proper through bass line and thus an example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example of two
part writing and this obliging us to provide a through bass on the
guitar.
And yes, the 'viola' is what many Italian sources of this period call a
bass violin (ie not a violoncello). Only later did it come to refer
exclusively to the tenor of the violin family.
rgds
M
--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall
mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 10:47
On 08/02/2011 10:09, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Stuart,
You write
'what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is it
this: a
predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords?
Which
composers are you thinking of?'
I don't know what others are thinking of, but I mentioned that the
similarity between much (especially Italian) guitar writing and that
for unaccompanied violin by such as Schmelzer, Biber, Matteis had
struck me some years ago. Almost all guitar composer exhibit this in
pieces from time to time but some particular ones which I recall
being
examplars of the fashion were: Pellegrini(1650), Carbonchi(1640),
Pesori(1648), Coriandoli(1670), Valdambrini (1646/7), Bottazzari
(1663), Granata (various)... A good example of the practice in
operation and a interesting perspective on this style is also shed
by
those few pieces which actually do have an independent bass line as
well as guitar tablature (eg Granata Op 5 of 1674 for violin, bass
violin and guitar) - the guitar 'bass' is often skeletal at best and
often non-existant whereas the guitar does double most of the
independent upper melodic line.
Well, looking at Granata's Novi Capricci Armonic Musicali: the
first
few pieces have a guitar part on the left hand side (in tab) and a
score for violin and a ('viola'=bass?) part on the right. If it's
assumed that the guitar is playing along with the bass line (and
violin), nevertheless the guitar parts stand as pieces in their own
right with basic, sketchy, two-part writing (plus chords here and
there). There are passages which are just the melodic line but
still
most of the writing is rudimentary two-partbut like much writing
for guitar before or since.
Stuart
Of course if anyone really wanted to push the matter and insist that
a
proper through bass was always present, I suppose it might be
possible
to construct a bass line (of sorts) from the lowest notes (depending
on
stringing!) of the strummed chords..
Martyn
--- On Mon, 7/2/11, Stuart Walsh [1][1]s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh [2][2]s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Monica Hall [3][3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist [4][4]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Monday, 7 February, 2011, 22:22
On 07/02/2011 17:21, Monica Hall wrote:
This was my summary. It caused outrage in some quarters but I
still
stand by most of it.
1. Both the conventional and re-entrant tunings were
considered
appropriate for strummed music and choice of one or the other was a
matter of practical convenience.
2. The development of an elaborate treble dominated style
after
1640 led to a preference for re-entrant stringing.
Monica, what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is
it
this: a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional
chords?
Which composers are you thinking of?
The small amount of fancier music for the English guitar/guittar in
the
18th century actually, literally looks like this - melodic lines -
single melodic lines and then occasional chords. But five-course
guitar
music doesn't look like this at all. It looks like there's some kind
of
bass and treble - it looks like, at least, two part music.
If the guitar is playing in this elaborate treble dominated style
(as
I am interpreting you as claiming) it would have to be in a
re-entrant
stringing, wouldn't it? It couldn't lead to a preference for it?
3. Perhaps as early as the 1650s Corbetta used bourdon on the
fourth course.
4. This became the preferred method of stringing in
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Like I said, limited experience and limited repertoire. No, I don't. i doubt I would try de Visee without the so-called French tuning. I simply take issue with characterizing the playing without bordones as an inherent sacrifice. It is not. It is simply different. Look, using an instrument to play music is limiting by definition. So is applying any form whatsoever to the music. It's the limits that transform sound into music. Bordones impose their limits, and fully re-entrant tuning imposes limts as well. Assuming one limit or another is not a sacrifice, it's a different perspective. That's all. __ From: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl To: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 5:30:03 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again Chris, do you also play Bartolotti, Guerau or de Visee without bourdons? Lex - Original Message - From: Chris Despopoulos [1]despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com To: Vihuelalist [2]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:26 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again Well, I can only say, from my own experience and study (such as it is) that it is not a sacrifice to play without bordones. It's different, but no less rich, and certainly no sacrifice... in *my* experience. In fact, it has opened up musical possibilities, as well as technical possibilities I haven't enjoyed before, and that were only hinted at by my experience with the ukulele. This is the experience of somebody who has played the guitar and other plucked instruments in a variety of styles over a period of decades -- but not the experience of a scholar. Nonetheless, I can't emphasize enough that is it no sacrifice to play without bordones, any more than it's a sacrifice to play on six rather than 11 or 13 courses... in my experience. My addmittedly limited experience with an admittedly limited exposure to the repertoire. DISCLAIMER: I'm not taking sides here. I'm just relating my experience. To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com 2. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
On 08/02/2011 10:53, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Hello Stuart,
Didn't you read me email quite through? - I specifically wrote about
Granata's Op 5! You'll see I take it as a good example of not
overbothering about a proper through bass line and thus an example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example of two
part writing and this obliging us to provide a through bass on the
guitar.
And yes, the 'viola' is what many Italian sources of this period call a
bass violin (ie not a violoncello). Only later did it come to refer
exclusively to the tenor of the violin family.
rgds
M
Martyn
I did read your email! I was just (politely, of course) disagreeing with
your idea that:
You'll see I take it as a good example of not overbothering about a proper
through bass line and thus an example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example of two-part
writing...
I suppose the line between melodic writing interspersed with chords
and (rudimentary) two part writing is a fine one. But just now looking
over th Granata pieces (the ones with violin/'viola') - although there
is the odd bar or two of melodic flow, I'd say 90% or so is basic
two-part (i.e.utterly typical guitar) writing.
Stuart
--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Stuart Walshs.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walshs.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Martyn Hodgsonhodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalistvihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall
mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 10:47
On 08/02/2011 10:09, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Stuart,
You write
'what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is it
this: a
predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords?
Which
composers are you thinking of?'
I don't know what others are thinking of, but I mentioned that the
similarity between much (especially Italian) guitar writing and that
for unaccompanied violin by such as Schmelzer, Biber, Matteis had
struck me some years ago. Almost all guitar composer exhibit this in
pieces from time to time but some particular ones which I recall
being
examplars of the fashion were: Pellegrini(1650), Carbonchi(1640),
Pesori(1648), Coriandoli(1670), Valdambrini (1646/7), Bottazzari
(1663), Granata (various)... A good example of the practice in
operation and a interesting perspective on this style is also shed
by
those few pieces which actually do have an independent bass line as
well as guitar tablature (eg Granata Op 5 of 1674 for violin, bass
violin and guitar) - the guitar 'bass' is often skeletal at best and
often non-existant whereas the guitar does double most of the
independent upper melodic line.
Well, looking at Granata's Novi Capricci Armonic Musicali: the
first
few pieces have a guitar part on the left hand side (in tab) and a
score for violin and a ('viola'=bass?) part on the right. If it's
assumed that the guitar is playing along with the bass line (and
violin), nevertheless the guitar parts stand as pieces in their own
right with basic, sketchy, two-part writing (plus chords here and
there). There are passages which are just the melodic line but
still
most of the writing is rudimentary two-partbut like much writing
for guitar before or since.
Stuart
Of course if anyone really wanted to push the matter and insist that
a
proper through bass was always present, I suppose it might be
possible
to construct a bass line (of sorts) from the lowest notes (depending
on
stringing!) of the strummed chords..
Martyn
--- On Mon, 7/2/11, Stuart Walsh [1][1]s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh [2][2]s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Monica Hall [3][3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist [4][4]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Monday, 7 February, 2011, 22:22
On 07/02/2011 17:21, Monica Hall wrote:
This was my summary. It caused outrage in some quarters but I
still
stand by most of it.
1. Both the conventional and re-entrant tunings were
considered
appropriate for strummed music and choice of one or the other was a
matter of practical convenience.
2. The development of an elaborate treble dominated style
after
1640 led to a preference for re-entrant stringing.
Monica, what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is
it
this: a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional
chords?
Which composers are you
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Hi Martyn, Still the general description 'a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords' seems not entirely adequate for the music of Pellegrini, Coriandoli (who is often very hard to understand because of the countless misprints/mistakes), Granata or Bottazari. In some of their works there certainly is a focus on the top line, which was becoming general style in Italy (Bologna) at that time. I feel we should not concentrate too much on a full through bass, but there certainly are independent second (lower) voices all the time, not just strummed chords. It is a type of composing which can be compared (with some good will) to the French lute style. Only the battuto element might give a different impression. So no, it's not my position that there is almost always a proper through bass line and the need for bourdons to play it. But quite often, in certain situations in the works of Granata and Roncalli, the music would be rather awkward without. Lex - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk To: Lex Eisenhardt eisenha...@planet.nl Cc: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu; Monica Hall mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk; Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:47 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again Thank you Lex, However I believe you might have missed the point I was trying to make: these collections are so full of this melodic punctuated with full chords style that they do not just represent a few isolated examples but rather reflect a lack of interest in a full through bass line (my understanding of your position is that you believe there is almost always a proper through bass line and so you feel the need for bourdons to play it). The nice Granata examples further represent this 'insitutional' view of not over bothering about a full through bass line Martyn To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Thanks Stuart - I really wasn't complaining.
Re yr message - I guess we'll just have to beg to differ.
But the only reason why this matter is so significant is, of course,
because if one believes there's always (or generally) a need for a
proper though bass line then it reinforces the requirement for bourdons
but if, as I believe, much of this music is really melody punctuated
and supported by harmony as chords then the need for bourdons is
clearly much less. I also think the use of a skeletal bass line even
supports this ie they are using the odd (often tonic) bass as short
harmonic reminder - if you see what I mean. In short, not so very
different from your 'English' guittar
rgds
Martyn
--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall
mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 11:26
On 08/02/2011 10:53, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Hello Stuart,
Didn't you read me email quite through? - I specifically wrote
about
Granata's Op 5! You'll see I take it as a good example of not
overbothering about a proper through bass line and thus an
example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example
of two
part writing and this obliging us to provide a through bass on
the
guitar.
And yes, the 'viola' is what many Italian sources of this period
call a
bass violin (ie not a violoncello). Only later did it come to
refer
exclusively to the tenor of the violin family.
rgds
M
Martyn
I did read your email! I was just (politely, of course) disagreeing
with
your idea that:
You'll see I take it as a good example of not overbothering about a
proper through bass line and thus an example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example of
two-part writing...
I suppose the line between melodic writing interspersed with chords
and (rudimentary) two part writing is a fine one. But just now looking
over th Granata pieces (the ones with violin/'viola') - although there
is the odd bar or two of melodic flow, I'd say 90% or so is basic
two-part (i.e.utterly typical guitar) writing.
Stuart
--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Stuart Walsh[1]s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh[2]s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar -
again
To: Martyn Hodgson[3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist[4]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall
[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 10:47
On 08/02/2011 10:09, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Stuart,
You write
'what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is
it
this: a
predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional
chords?
Which
composers are you thinking of?'
I don't know what others are thinking of, but I mentioned that
the
similarity between much (especially Italian) guitar writing
and that
for unaccompanied violin by such as Schmelzer, Biber, Matteis
had
struck me some years ago. Almost all guitar composer exhibit
this in
pieces from time to time but some particular ones which I
recall
being
examplars of the fashion were: Pellegrini(1650),
Carbonchi(1640),
Pesori(1648), Coriandoli(1670), Valdambrini (1646/7),
Bottazzari
(1663), Granata (various)... A good example of the
practice in
operation and a interesting perspective on this style is also
shed
by
those few pieces which actually do have an independent bass
line as
well as guitar tablature (eg Granata Op 5 of 1674 for violin,
bass
violin and guitar) - the guitar 'bass' is often skeletal at
best and
often non-existant whereas the guitar does double most of the
independent upper melodic line.
Well, looking at Granata's Novi Capricci Armonic Musicali:
the
first
few pieces have a guitar part on the left hand side (in tab)
and a
score for violin and a ('viola'=bass?) part on the right. If
it's
assumed that the guitar is playing along with the bass line
(and
violin), nevertheless the guitar parts stand as pieces in
their own
right with basic, sketchy, two-part writing (plus chords here
and
there). There are passages which are just the melodic line
but
still
most of the writing is
[VIHUELA] Re: Invertible counterpoint
Actually, I don't feel like starting this over again. If anyone is interested, my ideas on the dominance of the bourdon tuning in Italy can be read in the article in 'The Lute' 47. The problem with your article is that much of it is little more than speculation unsupported by any real evidence. Even the title is misleading as Sanz says In Spain as is usual etc not elsewhere. Which can be ordered at the Lute Society web shop. It would be a good opportunity to become a member. I am sure the Lute Society will appreciate the publicity. There is more to history than only printed sources. Such as? We have no idea how well-known he was. If I am not mistaken, he is not even listed in Sanz's preface. Nor are Millioni, Colonna, etc. (although they are mentioned by Mersenne). Sanz is listing players who have included detailed introductions mainly about accompanying a bass line. I know that Pellegrini's doesn't but he does have a lengthy introduction with other useful information. But have you noticed that the bourdonists Montesardo, Sanseverino and poor man Pesori all published alfabeto songs? Yes - but so did Brizeno although of course his are with Catalan cifras. And we don't whether Montesardo himself added the alfabeto or even Sanseverino. And it doesn't mean that everyone played the accompaniment with the method of stringing used in their tutors. It is not entirely clear that Montesardo himself played the guitar. I suppose that for accompaniment (compare Sanz), which is what the guitar was used for in the commedia dell'arte, bourdons were normally used. Possibly, even likely, but that doesn't prove that they were used by Bartolotti etc. who weren't playing noisy music. Indeed. The point is that, as I see it, most Italians and Spaniards were having bourdons. Some of those came to France. It's part of my explanatory theory. I wonder why if there wasn't much work for them. How much do you know about the music of the Commedia del Arte. As I understand it this for of entertainment consisted of improvised song, dance and acrobatics. Not exactly something which calls for an elaborate accompaniment. But do you know of a picture which shows his stringing? For that matter, a colleague here has found a guitar painting of a commedia dell'arte character, seemingly from the first half of the 17th c, showing very clearly the 'reverse' stringing of the two bass courses. As soon as I know more about it, I might inform you all about what and where. That will indeed be interesting. You haven't answered my query about the tuning chart in Corbetta's 1648 book or that in Granata. Monika To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
But the only reason why this matter is so significant is, of course,
because if one believes there's always (or generally) a need for a
proper though bass line then it reinforces the requirement for bourdons
but if, as I believe, much of this music is really melody punctuated
and supported by harmony as chords then the need for bourdons is
clearly much less. I also think the use of a skeletal bass line even
supports this ie they are using the odd (often tonic) bass as short
harmonic reminder - if you see what I mean. In short, not so very
different from your 'English' guittar
Yes - it is a circular argument based on different people's perceptions of
the music and whether they think a continuous bass line is really necessary.
People who are used to always having a bass line may find it difficult to
come to terms with the idea that music works well without one.
Monica
--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
To: Martyn Hodgson hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall
mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 11:26
On 08/02/2011 10:53, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Hello Stuart,
Didn't you read me email quite through? - I specifically wrote
about
Granata's Op 5! You'll see I take it as a good example of not
overbothering about a proper through bass line and thus an
example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example
of two
part writing and this obliging us to provide a through bass on
the
guitar.
And yes, the 'viola' is what many Italian sources of this period
call a
bass violin (ie not a violoncello). Only later did it come to
refer
exclusively to the tenor of the violin family.
rgds
M
Martyn
I did read your email! I was just (politely, of course) disagreeing
with
your idea that:
You'll see I take it as a good example of not overbothering about a
proper through bass line and thus an example of
melodic writing interspersed with chords rather than an example of
two-part writing...
I suppose the line between melodic writing interspersed with chords
and (rudimentary) two part writing is a fine one. But just now looking
over th Granata pieces (the ones with violin/'viola') - although there
is the odd bar or two of melodic flow, I'd say 90% or so is basic
two-part (i.e.utterly typical guitar) writing.
Stuart
--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Stuart Walsh[1]s.wa...@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Stuart Walsh[2]s.wa...@ntlworld.com
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar -
again
To: Martyn Hodgson[3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Vihuelalist[4]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu, Monica Hall
[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, 8 February, 2011, 10:47
On 08/02/2011 10:09, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
Dear Stuart,
You write
'what do you mean by elaborate treble dominated style? Is
it
this: a
predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional
chords?
Which
composers are you thinking of?'
I don't know what others are thinking of, but I mentioned that
the
similarity between much (especially Italian) guitar writing
and that
for unaccompanied violin by such as Schmelzer, Biber, Matteis
had
struck me some years ago. Almost all guitar composer exhibit
this in
pieces from time to time but some particular ones which I
recall
being
examplars of the fashion were: Pellegrini(1650),
Carbonchi(1640),
Pesori(1648), Coriandoli(1670), Valdambrini (1646/7),
Bottazzari
(1663), Granata (various)... A good example of the
practice in
operation and a interesting perspective on this style is also
shed
by
those few pieces which actually do have an independent bass
line as
well as guitar tablature (eg Granata Op 5 of 1674 for violin,
bass
violin and guitar) - the guitar 'bass' is often skeletal at
best and
often non-existant whereas the guitar does double most of the
independent upper melodic line.
Well, looking at Granata's Novi Capricci Armonic Musicali:
the
first
few pieces have a guitar part on the left hand side (in tab)
and a
score for violin and a ('viola'=bass?) part on the right. If
it's
assumed that the guitar is playing along with the bass line
(and
violin), nevertheless the guitar parts stand as pieces in
their own
right with basic, sketchy, two-part writing (plus chords here
and
there). There are passages which are just the melodic line
[VIHUELA] Re: Invertible counterpoint
Actually, I don't feel like starting this over again. If anyone is interested, my ideas on the dominance of the bourdon tuning in Italy can be read in the article in 'The Lute' 47. The problem with your article is that much of it is little more than speculation unsupported by any real evidence. I know that we have different ideas about what should be taken as 'real' evidence. Let others decide. To see what counts as evidence for you, I suggest that everyone should go to the article on stringing, on your website. Even the title is misleading as Sanz says In Spain as is usual etc not elsewhere. The title 'Bourdons as usual' has a double connotation (as is confirmed by our exchanges here). You haven't answered my query about the tuning chart in Corbetta's 1648 book or that in Granata. Any explanation of this particular odd chart would probably have to rest on mere speculation. Lex To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Bartolotti's music is not polyphonic. I suggest you read the whole of the entry in Grove and the entry for counterpoint and familiarize yourself with the correct terminology. The concise Oxford dictionary defines polyphony as ... Music in which several simultaneous instrumental or vocal parts are combined contrapuntally etc... I hope you don't mind me to hold on to Grove Music Online for the moment. Your seem to select just one element from an entry of several thousand words. It's not a very adequate recapitulation. Bartolottti's music is not consistently in even 2 or 3 parts. It certainly has a bass line quite a lot of the time but it is questionable how far this falls on the 4th and 5th courses. Baroque guitar music is orientated towards the 3rd course as the lowest part because of the re-entrant effect of the treble strings. So you say. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
The concise Oxford dictionary defines polyphony as ... Music in which several simultaneous instrumental or vocal parts are combined contrapuntally etc... I hope you don't mind me to hold on to Grove Music Online for the moment. Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland you think that you can use words to mean what you say they mean, not what other people think they mean. Bartolotti's music is to some extent contrapuntal but not consistently so. When we analyse it we analyse the counterpoint not the polyphony. Your seem to select just one element from an entry of several thousand words. It's not a very adequate recapitulation. The important thing is to select the correct usage from the various options. I suspect you didn't understand the distinction between the terms in the first place although you are obviously not going to admit it. I don't think your knowledge of English is adequate enough for you to suggest that when other people do use the correct terms or terms which are interchangeable you are right and they are wrong. If you really want to communicate with other people you should pay some attention to these matters. The fact that you don't seem to understand the basic terminology and your analysis of the music often seems to be faulty makes me wonder how much you really know about musical theory. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: Invertible counterpoint
Any explanation of this particular odd chart would probably have to rest on mere speculation. Like the rest of the charts. Monica To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
I am a dabbler in early strings. I don't ever intend to be anything but. However, I am a fan of scholarship (a biologist on the day job) and this extends to my appreciation of music. I watch this bourdon-vs.-not debate periodically because both sides tend to have insight that I appreciate. I don't take sides because I tend to feel arguments from both sides are correct; I would side with both. I hear the music as both contrapuntal and sparsely homophonic (if I may be permitted use of that term without immediate consultation of Groves, Oxford, or similar reference), sometimes more one than the other and often with both textures contained within singular pieces, sometimes even within singular passages. If others hear differently (or come to different conclusions based upon more in-depth analyses), I'm OK with that. Having not consulted all the originals directly myself (in fact, having consulted only a small handful in facsimile or translation) I think Monica has catalogued what was relatively conclusively written on the subject of stringing the 5-course guitar quite nicely, usefully, and objectively. There are a great many composers to have not written so conclusively, and any approach to that music requires a greater degree of speculation. That speculation can (regarding HIP, probably should) be evidentially driven, but without explicit text by the composer, that evidence is largely circumstantial. There is a difference between evidence and conclusive evidence. That's OK. Both concepts have their uses. Some composers did write pretty clearly on stringing preferences, and some expressed clearly differing preferences. Also, with so many not explicitly describing a preference, the end result today is that any one stringing paradigm is compromise when applied across the extant body of repertoire. I'm OK with that. I actually like hearing the famous Sanz Pavanas as much without bourdons as with. They are different; with competent performance, I can find both enjoyable and neither offensive. (I admit, the one thing that does cause me to raise my skeptical eyebrow is the use of a g' on the g course.) Even if Sanz himself may have been offended to hear a bourdon playing his music (speculation), given his acknowledgement that the use of bourdons was so prevalent where he lived and listened, I'd be willing to wager some Spanish guitarist bought Sanz's book in the late 17th c. and played that music fully bourdonned...and sounded good doing so. Again, any singular stringing paradigm embodies compromise. So what? Pick whichever works best to your ears for the music you'd most like to play. Live long and prosper, all brethren and sistren in pluck, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Thanks Eugene You have really summed up my position even better than I could myself. This present discussion started when I mentioned that there are at least 5 different opinions as to the right tuning for Santiago de Murcia's music - which I thought was rather amusing. The response was Oh - but he must have had a preference himself. But he may not have done. Composers don't necessarily expect their music to be played in a very specific way. From the historical point of view we want to try and recapture what the music may have sounded like but we have a range of options to chose from. There were different method of stringing but one method of stringing is not better than another. I am not sure whether that statement will meet with universal approval. Monica - Original Message - From: Eugene C. Braig IV brai...@osu.edu To: 'Vihuelalist' vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:14 PM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again I am a dabbler in early strings. I don't ever intend to be anything but. However, I am a fan of scholarship (a biologist on the day job) and this extends to my appreciation of music. I watch this bourdon-vs.-not debate periodically because both sides tend to have insight that I appreciate. I don't take sides because I tend to feel arguments from both sides are correct; I would side with both. I hear the music as both contrapuntal and sparsely homophonic (if I may be permitted use of that term without immediate consultation of Groves, Oxford, or similar reference), sometimes more one than the other and often with both textures contained within singular pieces, sometimes even within singular passages. If others hear differently (or come to different conclusions based upon more in-depth analyses), I'm OK with that. Having not consulted all the originals directly myself (in fact, having consulted only a small handful in facsimile or translation) I think Monica has catalogued what was relatively conclusively written on the subject of stringing the 5-course guitar quite nicely, usefully, and objectively. There are a great many composers to have not written so conclusively, and any approach to that music requires a greater degree of speculation. That speculation can (regarding HIP, probably should) be evidentially driven, but without explicit text by the composer, that evidence is largely circumstantial. There is a difference between evidence and conclusive evidence. That's OK. Both concepts have their uses. Some composers did write pretty clearly on stringing preferences, and some expressed clearly differing preferences. Also, with so many not explicitly describing a preference, the end result today is that any one stringing paradigm is compromise when applied across the extant body of repertoire. I'm OK with that. I actually like hearing the famous Sanz Pavanas as much without bourdons as with. They are different; with competent performance, I can find both enjoyable and neither offensive. (I admit, the one thing that does cause me to raise my skeptical eyebrow is the use of a g' on the g course.) Even if Sanz himself may have been offended to hear a bourdon playing his music (speculation), given his acknowledgement that the use of bourdons was so prevalent where he lived and listened, I'd be willing to wager some Spanish guitarist bought Sanz's book in the late 17th c. and played that music fully bourdonned...and sounded good doing so. Again, any singular stringing paradigm embodies compromise. So what? Pick whichever works best to your ears for the music you'd most like to play. Live long and prosper, all brethren and sistren in pluck, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[VIHUELA] Re: The stringing of the baroque guitar - again
Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland you think that you can use words to mean what you say they mean, not what other people think they mean. Bartolotti's music is to some extent contrapuntal but not consistently so. When we analyse it we analyse the counterpoint not the polyphony. Why make it more complicated than it is? Bartolotti wrote polyphonic music. When we play it, it is hoped that we can hear the different voices. you think that you can use words to mean what you say they mean, not what other people think they mean. I really should ask you to be more precise. The fact that you don't seem to understand the basic terminology and your analysis of the music often seems to be faulty makes me wonder how much you really know about musical theory. Now we seem to have a repertoire consisting of 'a predominantly melodic line interspersed with occasional chords.' The word 'predominantly' makes it very vague. Are you suggesting that, for example, the music in Granata's 1684 book is not in simultaneous parts? (the simultaneity not always being immediately apparent) Lex To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
