[VIHUELA] Re: G chord on Baroque Guitar
Hello Friends- On this issue I do have something to contribute- a very specific example from the alfabeto repertoire (along with some shameless self-promotion!) In preparation for my recording of Grandi's 3rd volume of arias from 1626, my teacher suggested the alternate fingering 20003, which I had never used before, for a specific phrase where he felt a doubled third was really necessary for the texture. I'm not sure that I make the most of this opportunity in the promo video- I confess I can't hear the difference as well when I'm only listening, but when I'm playing it does give a clarity to the chord change that I also prefer. Now I also use it in faster passages where the major third really needs to come through strongly. [1]https://vimeo.com/47540812 The score is on the screen very briefly at 1:55 (with the chord in question on the downbeat of the final system), and the instance where the alternate fingering was proposed is at 4:50 in the first verse, with three verses to follow. This has been a very interesting thread! Thanks to everyone for your input. Bud From: Martyn Hodgson To: Monica Hall Cc: Vihuelalist Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:04:45 AM Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: G chord on Baroque Guitar Dear Monica, Interesting as ever - my responses to yr latest are pasted in the text below rgds Martyn --- On Thu, 13/9/12, Monica Hall <[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: From: Monica Hall <[3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: G chord on Baroque Guitar To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: "Vihuelalist" <[5]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu> Date: Thursday, 13 September, 2012, 14:18 20033; and the suggestion > that using the 3rd fret to act as a pivot (for example to play 00232),> whilst certainly true, is a bit desperate: In your previous message you actually said..."This is also a very good and practical point"! R1> Indeed I did - but in the context of generally advocating the 20033 fingering mostly for another reason (see earlier). I don't really see pivots as the principal reason why the Old Ones preferred 20033 to 20003. To repeat, yet again, I think it more to do with the distribution of notes in the chord (see my earlier) - you have a different view (also see R4 below). Try playing the progression A B C A at speed and insert a 4-3 suspension into chord C for good measure. It is not a question of being desperate - it just doesn't make sense to do it other than in the standard way. R2> It's not really particularly tricky even with the 20003 fingering - is it. But as already said, I support the general use of 20033 - it's just that making the case on the basis of such a relatively straightforward chord change is a bit - well, desperate. > my explanation for 20033: including that it results in a reasonably > equal mix of thirds and fifths in the harmony (especially if the > French/Corbetta tuning is employed) - see earlier. Originally we were not talking about Corbetta - at least I wasn't. That is a red herring. R3>. Not a red herring at all. You no doubt noted that I discussed distribution of notes in the 20033/20003 chords generally. But then went on to point out, that if the French/Corbetta tuning is employed the distribution of thirds and fifths in the 20033 configuration is much more equal than with 20003. Note I suggested that the use of a bourdon on the 4th course may be an earlier practice than commonly thought so is relevant. Evidence? - use of bourdon on the 16th century four course instrument. Do you really think that the different voicings of the chord sounds appreciably different. R4> Yes I do - I'm surprised you don't. To reduce to absurdity: if we eliminate, say, all thirds from a chord will we/you not hear a difference if a thirs is now included to replace a fifth? As an hypothetical example strum 02250 (LH fingering 114) - and now 02210. Is there not a striking difference? And so, but somewhat less, for our 20033 and 20003 friend. What about all the other chords which which double the 3rd? R5> I'm perfectly happy to agree, and have previously said so, that the alfabeto chord shapes are practical, relatively easy to finger, chords and that it was probably this that led to their use which then became codified in the alfabeto. What I don't agree with is that the playing of 20003 is so very much harder than 20033. And that I don't think this was the principal reason for the fingering's almost universal adoption in the alfabeto charts. I feel that the problem with a lot of people on this list is
[VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was: Return to earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
Hello everyone-
I hope I'm going about this the right way, by just responding in the
thread rather than going back to individual messages from the last 24
hours.
Thanks very much to all who took the time to listen to recordings I've
posted. For those who may have missed that message, the link is:
[1]http://www.budroach.com/baroque_guitar.html?r=20111217024548
What I was hoping to garner was a sense of whether or not the simple
alfabeto strumming is considered to be a sufficient accompaniment for
songs from the 1620's, and the general opinion seems to be in the
affirmative. On this issue, Monica and I seem to be in agreement, but
others have introduced suggestions that, in my view, would partly
diminish my goal with this project, which is to recreate what a singer
from the period would have done.
Martyn's suggestion to follow the bass line in certain passages would,
I agree, be musically effective, but would also depart from a "pure"
alfabeto accompaniment. Of course, the odd 4-3 suspension is also a
version of that same departure, and I often do this, but I'm not
convinced that the block harmony of the guitar is the best vehicle for
switching bar to bar from a bass line role to block-ish harmonic
underpinning. The evidence for this can be found in Grandi's third
volume itself. Although titled "Cantade et arie", there are 23 strophic
songs, and only one cantata at the end. Alfabeto is used for every
strophic song, but not the cantata, which incorporates the odd measure
of melodic material in the bass line. The role of the bass in this
piece is clearly different from in the songs, which makes it less
suitable for accompaniment by a lone guitar.
At the risk of tossing too many ideas into the mix, this also touches
on the notion of combining the alfabeto with the printed bass line. I
am intrigued by Alexander Dean's argument that the harmonic dissonance
that would be created (specifically at cadential points) by this
arrangement helped to formulate the evolution of later 17th-century
harmonic practice. However, it again is outside my specific goal of
presenting these songs as a self-accompanied singer.
And, finally, to perhaps drive everyone crazy with a topic that has
been discussed so much in recent threads, I would like to bring out
into the open what Lex has brought up privately- the use of bourdons
in this repertoire. (I can almost hear your groans of despair!) From
what I have read, both from sources and from opinions posted on this
site, it is uncertain that one single stringing option was embraced by
an entire region for an extended period of time (for my purposes, the
third decade of the 17th century). Since the case can be made for a
number of stringing options, I have chosen the one that sounds best to
my ear, which is a boudon on the fourth course only. The fuller sound
that results from a bourdon on the fifth course is very appealing in
the abstract, but I find it distracting that with every downward stroke
there is an implied bass line from that pesky but useful fifth course!
Yet for some reason a bourdon on the fourth course isn't nearly as
intrusive, giving the benefits of a fuller tone without the harmonic
implications that I don't believe the composer (in this case Grandi)
intended.
So those are my three cents. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Since I have been receiving the messages from the listserve I have been
struck by the passion you all bring to these subjects, and am thrilled
to be a part of the discussion! And to read it all while listening to
Lex's beautiful playing on his Canta Venetia recording is a great way
to spend an early Saturday afternoon.
Bud
--- On Sat, 12/17/11, Monica Hall wrote:
From: Monica Hall
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was: Return to
earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
To: "Martyn Hodgson"
Cc: "Vihuelalist"
Received: Saturday, December 17, 2011, 10:35 AM
Ah - I think I know what's happening - you've got the wrong end of
the
> stick:
I am glad you know what is happening. It all depends on which end of
the
stick one has got hold of.
I'm not (and have not as far as I can see) suggesting that an
> alfabeto accompaniment necessarily converts into a bass line (ie
the
> lowest sounding note in each chord would result in the bass line -
even
> if we knew it) but the converse: that a bass line enables one to
> 'realise' a chordal accompaniment (eg alfabeto) on the guitar - not
the
> same thing at all.
I'll take your word for it - there isn't time to go back all over it.
> And, of course, songs with nothing other than alfabeto can't and
> therefore don't show single notes. It's only when mixed tablature
> becomes comm
[VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was: Return to earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
Hello-
I'm almost too late into the conversation, but this topic does pertain
to one of my current projects, so I'll put it out there
It seems to me that the debate centers on whether or not the simple
alfabeto chords will suffice as an accompaniment, without additional
instruments to play the written bass line. It is my opinion that some
composers (although perhaps not all) would have been quite content to
hear their secular songs accompanied by the guitar alone, and that the
alfabeto framework provided would give an adequate harmonic structure
for the voice.
However, I have had very little success in finding any recordings of
performances of early 17th century secular song that doesn't truck out
a veritable football team of continuo players! I am not immune to the
charms of the hammered dulcimer, but I do find it difficult to
understand how these interpretations could ever be considered to be
closer to what Grandi had in mind than what I have been doing myself as
a singer and guitarist.
So the question remains: Is the accompaniment provided by the alfabeto
symbols lacking? And, to my mind even more importantly: Is the
freedom that results from a self-accompanied performance (that simply
wouldn't be possible with a 3-4 member continuo group) worth enough to
outweigh any perceived shortcomings in the "realization"?
I have recorded three songs as a demo for a grant application, and have
posted them on a hidden page of my personal website, for those who
might be interested in this debate. One aria each by Grandi, Landi, and
Kapsberger, with scores and translations included.
The link is:
[1]http://www.budroach.com/baroque_guitar.html?r=20111216104205
I welcome your comments (either here or on my contact page) and thank
you for your scholarship!
Bud Roach
--- On Fri, 12/16/11, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
From: Martyn Hodgson
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was: Return to
earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
To: "Chris Despopoulos"
Cc: "Vihuelalist"
Received: Friday, December 16, 2011, 9:17 AM
Thanks Chris.
Your observation that '...whether we call it bajo continuo per se,
it's consistent in my mind to consider alfabeto a realization
(stylized, perhaps) of the bass..', certainly coincides with my view
on
guitar basso continuo using alfabeto. And, it seems to me, reflects
Marini's position too.
regards
martyn
--- On Fri, 16/12/11, Chris Despopoulos
<[2]despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
From: Chris Despopoulos <[3]despopoulos_chr...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was:
Return
to earlier question: {was: Agazzari guitar [was Re: Capona?]}
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Monica Hall"
<[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: "Vihuelalist" <[6]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Friday, 16 December, 2011, 14:08
I thought one of the significant points of the period was a
transition
to harmonic vs voice thinking. And that the guitar was well
positioned, if not instrumental, within that transition. So whether
we
call it bajo continuo per se, it's consistent in my mind to consider
alfabeto a realization (stylized, perhaps) of the bass.
Of course, the alfabeto can often oversimplify that realization. I
look at it much the way I look at the song books you can get today,
with guitar chords that gloss over interesting harmonic
progressions.
The same music played by the 8th graders I taught would sound very
different from what I would choose to do.
One thing I hear almost everywhere I go is that by and large the
published guitar music is a performance suggestion, not writ.
Everybody I've worked with has blessed changes to fingering,
addition
or changes of notes, and encouraged improvisation. The Sanz book is
viewed as a lesson book, not a book of pieces that are to be played
exactly as written, for example. With Roncali I was chastised for
not
improvising. So why would alfabetos be any different?But does
that
make them any less realizations of the bass? If we're talking about
pre-harmonic thinking, where else would the alfabetos come from?
cud
__
From: Martyn Hodgson <[7]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Monica Hall <[8]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: >
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:41 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Strumming as basso continuo {was: Return to
earlier question:
