[VIHUELA] Further to the Moravsky Ms.
Personally I think it would be better to confine the discussion to the
vihuela list where it was initiated. I don't think it is appropriate to
post extended character assassinations to a public discussion list so
my
response will focus an the manuscript itself.
This is just a summary of my views after spending some time studying it
over the last few days.
As far as I can see the manuscript is undated. It could have been
copied any time in the 18th century. It was probably copied over a
considerable period of time – it also includes vocal music and a piece
for trombone and bass. There are different sections to it.
Tuning Charts
f.48r Fundamenta Gytarra
This chart clearly indicates that this “Gytarra” has 5 stopped courses
tuned to the same intervals as the baroque guitar and one additional
unstopped bass tuned a tone below the 5th. This is not a 5-course
guitar; it is a 6-course instrument as I think Daniel pointed out in
his original message. Whether it is a figure of 8 shaped instrument at
all is another matter.
f.48v Accordo Gytarra et Mandora
The first section of this chart between the two double bar lines shows
the stringing of a six-course instrument not a five course one. This
is the same as the stringing for the “gytarra” shown on f.48r.
The second section between the two double bar lines shows the seven
unstopped courses of the mandora.
Your comment - 1. Tuning chart on f.48v: The basic tuning checks
('Accordo Gytarra et Mandora') given between the first double bar lines
are for a five course guitar and for a six course.
I think you are mistaken. They are not. Nothing in the chart is
intended to apply to a 5-course instrument. One of the instruments has
one unstopped bass; the other has seven. It is just possible that the
open basses are interchangeable between the two instruments.
Your comment - 2. The tuning for an extended bass 12 course instrument
refers to a guitar.
I disagree with you on several counts as I have tried to explain in
previous messages. I don't think it refers to a theorboed guitar. From
the heading it would appear that the first section relates to the
"Gytarra" and the second to the mandora.
Your comment - You appear to believe that there was a form of mandora
at this time (the early eighteenth century) with 'seven unstopped
courses'. In my long researches into the instrument I've come across
nothing to support this view and if you are really aware (rather than
merely simply asserting this for effect) of any evidence to the
contrary I'd be very grateful for it.
I don’t believe anything of the sort. I am just trying to understand
what this particular manuscript tells us about these two particular
instruments. I am not interested in asserting anything for effect.
Most of your research seems to be based on speculation. As the
manuscript is undated we don’t know what period it relates to. It could
have been copied any time from the early 17th century onwards. It
would be necessary to identify some of the other pieces, in particular
the vocal pieces, to try and arrive at a more specific date.
All that I said about the music was -
As far as the pieces are concerned, whether or not the unstopped sixth
course is used seems to depend on the key of the piece. Those on f.48v-
f.59v which use the sixth course are mostly in C major or keys without
sharps, whilst those from f. 60r –f.76v are in A major or D
major i.e. keys with sharps where there is no call for a low G.
>From f.76v the pieces are numbered starting with 1 which seems to
represent a new “campaign” of copying. None of them use the unstopped G
– they could be for 5-course guitar or whatever instrument you wish.
There is nothing that lends weight to your suggestion that the
"gytarra" is a figure of eight-shaped instrument. It is could be lute
shaped or figure of eight - we simply don't know.
Your response to this perfectly reasonable observation was
Surely you can't expect us to agree to this procrustean interpreation?
You singularly overlook the bulk of all the pieces also in C to F and
those in G and D from later in the MS. And I've already clearly
identified where the same (Losy?) piece was tellingly transcribed -
which surely disproves your suggestion: 'a single counter example
disproves a proposition..!']
(Does it? Since when?)
If any one suggests an explanation which is different from your own
preconceived ideas it is dismissed as “procrustean”. If anyone is
procrustean it is you. In truth it hadn’t occurred to you that there
might be another explanation, and rather than consider it with an open
mind you dismiss it in a patronising way. Your comment about Losy is
beside the point – I have clearly said that the pieces from f.76v may
be for 5-course guitar anyway.
I have been able to spend a bit more time looking at the music.
Summary
f.48v – f.57v Pieces with open 6th course in C major/A minor/F major/D
minor with
[VIHUELA] Re: Even more to yet moRe: re. Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar stringing
- Forwarded Message -
From: Martyn Hodgson
To: Monica Hall ; VihuelaList
; Baroque Lute List
Sent: Sunday, 14 January 2018, 16:35
Subject: Even more to yet more: re. Moravsky Manuscript AND five course
guitar stringing
Dear Monica,
=
I've thought long and hard over whether to reply to yours below - my
initial reaction was to leave it since life's really too short to spend
much time trying to inform when a mind is effectively closed -correctly
or not. However, on reflection, and with the benefit of a few private
communications, it's now thought best to politely, but firmly, respond
and, yet again, point out the various inaccuracies, misreadings,
misunderstandings and bias presented by your earlier partial responses
and to politely point out that a careful reading of the evidence leads
to different conclusions from those you have decided to prejudicially
adopt.
=
In fact, I would normally respond by firstly thanking the sender for
their contribution but, sadly, this cannot be the case with yours of 7
Jan since you seem determined to avoid examining, and thus properly
responding to, the detailed evidence I put before you about this MS,
and simply continue to maintain some predetermined and procrustean
position, which you've previously settled on, and to refuse any
meaningful discussion of the historical evidence. Perhaps, dear Monica,
you might also consider reading the threads with rather more care and
less hurry, rather than impulsively dashing off hasty, partial and
curtailed Trumpesque responses. This may also be linked to some sort of
self-elected role as arbiter of political correctness in the early
guitar field which, as with all such personalised promotions, can
unwittingly result in an unwillingness to properly address contrary
views and to crudely disparage any which are not entirely the same as
your own (. 'You seem to be so muddled that it is difficult to
grasp what you actually mean'..).
=
But, as you will recall, we've been here before (and only a year ago -
though in a different forum) so I suppose this strange method of
conducting, what should normally surely be, a reasonably scholarly
debate ought to come as no surprise to us. What is more worrying,
however, is that the experience of the earlier sorry exchange does not
seem to have resulted in any modification subsequently. In particular,
dear Monica, the use of these online fora as a sort of early guitar
'Twittersphere' (complete with bizarre Trump-like pronouncements,
including: similar failures to properly consider evidence presented by
others ('fake news'); similar tendencies to abruptly curtail debate;
and even unexpected personal disparagement) really does make it
extraordinarily difficult to engage in much rational discourse. You
will no doubt be aware that some scholars and players are no longer
willing to freely express their considered and thoughtful views in
these online fora because of concern at being subject to what they
consider as biased, partial and ill-founded representations of their
opinions.
=
As expressed before, I have much admiration for some of the work you've
done on the early guitar (especially the five course instrument) over
the years and the generosity with which you dispense advice to
novices. Further as you know, our views do, amazingly enough, coincide
in a number of important areas (for example, over the stringing of the
seventeenth century instrument) but all this should not deflect any of
us from politely questioning any mistaken conclusions you, me, or any
other, put forward from time to time - provided this is based on a
careful consideration of the evidence and what is actually being said.
=
Accordingly, I shall now once again revisit the earlier exchanges and
try to briefly summarise the principal issues (covered in fuller, if
tedious, detail in my earlier emails and yours which are also copied
below for convenience of all) which still require proper consideration
rather than a brusque you are 'simply wrong' - but with no proper
explanation!:
=
1. Tuning chart on f.48v: The basic tuning checks ('Accordo Gytarra et
Mandora') given between the first double bar lines are for a five
course guitar and for a six course mandora (the sixth course being but
a tone below the fifth as here was quite common on the mandora in this
period). This is all explained in more detail in my mailings below.
=
2. The tuning for an extended bass 12 course instrument refers to a
guitar, which, of course, is known in an extended bass configuration
from the seventeenth century - the rare multi-course mandora is only
found significantly later in the eighteenth century and then only with
three additional basses (ie nine courses maximum). You appear to
be
