----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
To: Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>; VihuelaList
<vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>; Baroque Lute List
<baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
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
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.
=
3. My previous detailed responses - perhaps too long for your personal
taste/attention (copied again below with your replies for convenience)
- contained considered presentations of the evidence to support the
case that the works employing just five courses (some 85% of the MS's
pieces) from f. 68 (excluding the works in A which fit onto either the
mandora or guitar as they stand) are for five course guitar, since as
already pointed out ad nauseum, if the six course mandora was preferred
in these then the low bass could have easily been notated as in the
first few pieces from f 48v to 57.
Of course, as I was also at pains to point out, this does not mean that
a mandora player might not work through the later pieces and simply
employ the extra sixth course (as in f48 to 57) as they wished. The
point is that the later pieces were intabulated principally for a five
course instrument - the guitar - and that the works with an added sixth
bass are principally for the mandora. The interesting example of the
work attrib Losy/Loschi which I spend some time discussing is a good
example of the small, but telling, differences best suited to each
instrument required. Your belief that this MS evidences the use of a
six course guitar at this time in the early eighteenth century is, as
with your suggestion of a twelve course mandora mentioned earlier,
simply not born out by the organological and musicological evidence.
Any clear evidential contributions, rather than mere assertions, to the
contrary much welcomed!......
=
4. Many more explanations of the importance of a detailed critical
examination of the evidence from the tablatures are given in my earlier
emails (see below). I shall not repeat them here yet again, but I
should also be grateful for your proper and considered response to each
of these too in due course.
=
Perhaps all this is a simple misunderstanding on both sides and/or
failure to transmit and comprehend each and the other's views. Either
way I hope you will understand why it was thought necessary to write in
such a manner - but I hope always politely and respectfully.
=
Finally, in our most recent personal email exchange a couple of days
ago, you asked me not to copy your private responses onto this list - I
will, naturally, respect this wish.
=
I do hope all can be resolved - if not then perhaps we ought, as
previously suggested, simply leave it at that and politely 'agree to
disagree'............
=
regards
Martyn
==============================================================
__________________________________________________________________
From: "mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; Daniel Shoskes <dshos...@mac.com>;
VihuelaList <vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>; Baroque Lute List
<baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 7 January 2018, 15:58
Subject: Re: Yet more Re: [VIHUELAR) Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five
course guitar stringing
I can't possibly respond to all of this. You seem to be so muddled
that it is difficult to grasp what you actually mean..
I think your interpretation of the tablature tuning checks is simply
wrong. The fact that much of the music does not use the sixth unstopped
course,(or for that matter the seven unstopped courses of the mandora)
is irrelevant. The tablature tuning check for the gytara indicates
that it has 5 stopped courses and one unstopped bass. You are muddling
up two different facets of the manuscript. None of this has any bearing
on how the 5-course guitar was strung.
My analysis of the keys of the pieces is as accurate as I could make
in
the time available.The pieces which use the sixth course are in C major
or flat keys and the ones which do not are almost all in A major, with
a few in D major. The manuscript was obviously copied over a period
of time. The pieces from f.76v form a new section with pieces numbered
1-56, probably copied at a later date. The manuscript is a very
complex document.
You also seem to be confused about Stradivarius. It is not clear
whether these instruments are lute shaped or figure of 8 shaped. The
surviving patterns are of the neck and pegboxes only. The stringing
instructions for the one of them indicate that the high octave strings
are on the thumb side of the course.
I will have to leave it there.
As ever
Monica
====================================================
----Original Message----
From: [1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Date: 07/01/2018 14:48
To: "Monica Hall"<[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>, "Daniel
Shoskes"<[3]dshoskes@mac.
com>, "VihuelaList"<[4]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>, "Baroque Lute List"
<[5]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subj: Yet more Re: [VIHUELAR) Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course
guitar stringing
Dear Monica.
My responses are interposed below in bold, new roman and italic for
clear differentiation (sadly, though, not in my preferred typeface for
the others on the list version which only goes to them in standard
typeface and no spacing but, from what Wayne tells me, it'll reach you
with correct typeface etc)
I think we must still agree to disagree about much of
this!..........................
Best wishes,
Martyn
From: "[6]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <[7]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: [8]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; Daniel Shoskes <[9]dshos...@mac.com>;
VihuelaList <[10]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 6 January 2018, 16:41
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five
course guitar stringing
Unfortunately the folio numbers are not very clear in the pdf. Some of
the pages seem to have been cropped on the right- hand side when the
film was made and the recto and verso of each folio is on a single
page of the pdf.
=
[MH: Yes - it's a shame about this]-
=
-I will try to refer to the correct ones.
-To recapFolio 48r is headed "Fundamenta Gytarra".
=
[MH: Indeed, and not as just 'Cytarra' (or Chytarra) as correctly
pointed out in my last]
=
-The tablature checks indicate that this instrument has five stopped
courses and one additional unstopped bass course. Folio 48v is headed
"Accordo Gytarra et Mandora".
=
[MH: This is an incorrect assumption. The overwhelming bulk of pieces
in this MS are clearly written for just a five course
instrument (see my
telling note earlier about the transcription for a five course
instrument
- I naturally suggest for gytarra for this version of the
same (Losy?)
piece presented earlier for a six course instrument, the mandora)
=
.-You are right â I agree that these are two different instruments.
The
Gytarra has five stopped courses and one unstopped bass as shown in
the first section of the tablature.
=
[MH: No, you've got this mixed up, as explained earlier and again in
this mail. The gytarra has five courses, the madora six. The theorboed
instrument is probably a theorboed guitar. Adn:- the mandora at this
time
did not have such extra basses - see below]
=
The Mandora has seven unstopped basses as shown in the
second section of tablature. It is to be assumed that the stopped
courses of both instruments are tuned in the same way. It is not for a
five course gytarra or a six course mandora as you seem to suggest.
=
[MH: This is a mistaken view of what the source tells us since,
as already pointed out, most of the pieces (some 85% of them) in the
MS are for just a five course instrument. You have assumed that the
part between the first set of double bar lines refers equally to the
gytarra and to the mandora. As already explained, this is mistaken
because the overwhelming bulk of pieces in the MS are, in fact, for a
five course instrument (thegytarra) rather than for the common mandora
tuning with six courses. I examine this matter again below]
=
-I don't think either of these two examples refer to an instrument
with
just five stopped courses.
=
[ MH: as said above, you appear to have overlooked contrary
information about the tablature already brought to your attention
earlier.]
=
-On Folio 96r there is a table of alfabeto chords and a
tablature tuningchart headed "Accordo aliud" (?). If that is right I
assume
it means "another tuning" but my Latin or Czech is pretty basic. In
the table
of chords, the open courses to be included are only shown for Chord E;
Chord is very odd â Indeed, as pointed out, they are wrong - a B
flatminor chord with G on the first course. There are stroke marks on
thelowest line.
=
[MH: No - this is a simple bowlderisation and
inaccurate representation of nominal five course guitar tuning (as
employed in the following aria set in tablature AND with Alafbeto - see
my earlier note about this feature in this particular piece which has
been overlooked). Clearly the tuning diagram showing an octave between
the open first and fifth fret on the third course makes no sense -
neither does that between the third fret of the second course and the
open third course! The scribe has simply got the courses wrong......
Moreover, it is the following aria (on f. 96v not on 96), identified in
my last,
which clearly confirms this piece as being in the ordinary nominal
guitar tuning intervals - and not any known lute (or mandora!) tuning.
The mandora never employed Alfabeto as appears in this work
=
-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 âf.76v are in A major or D
major i.e. keys with sharps where there is no call for a low G
natural.
=
[MH: Surely you can't expect us to agree to this procrustean
interpreation?You singularly overlook thebulk 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......!']
=
-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
â 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.
=
[MH: See my earlier:Particularly relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi
(Losy?) on 51V which employs the sixth course: however, the same
piece is again written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but,
tellingly, without the sixth course (g) and with the errant note
simply
replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice
might have also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (f.
48v to 57) by a player with only a five course instrument.
Finally, f 96 actually has a table for guitar Alfabeto giving both
the usual shorthand symbolsand their tablature interpretation. This is
followed (96v) by a piece in mixed notation employing both tablature
and Alfabeto symbols (in fact, symbols B, F and G). Whilst telling us
nothing unambiguous about the instrument's shape, it is yet more weight
to suggest a normal guitar shaped instrument of the period was expected
for the Gytarra. Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads
'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not
Cytarra A Mandore (perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?). This precise
wording
also clearly implies different instruments but both having the same
basic tuning for five courses - otherwise it would have been 'Gytarra
aliterMandora', or similar, to show that two different words were in
that casereferring to one and the same instrument.I, of course,
understand that this says nothing explicit about the shape of the
gytarra
(Just because something is called a "cytarra" doesn'tmean that it is
a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I
think it highly unlikely to be lute shaped like the mandora - else why
have the very similar two instruments at all - but with a wholly
different name?Accordingly, I think, on the balance of probabilities,
that the MS's gytarra was ,indeed, probably shaped differently to the
lute - and most likely as contemporary early eigteenth century guitar.
Moreover, surely by the early eighteenth century there was no longer
the earlier confusions over the renaissance gittern/guitar shape. I
therefore see no compelling reason to suggest that, by this
later period, MS D-189 required a gytarra that was not just an early
eighteenth century gitarra/guitar shaped instrument.
................. We may simply have to agree to disagree over this.
=
[MH: Further, the numerous gytarra pieces in Cmajor later in the MS to
those you mention in your reply could very easily be played with a low
sixth course (as the {Losy?} example referred to earlierwell
demonstrates)
if these later pieces were truly, as you suggest, also for a six
course
instrument. I think not - it is really stretching remote possibilities
much
too far over much more reasonable probabilities to suggest otherwise.
Simply overlooked is that the majority of pieces after f. 67 are in
keys
where low sixth course (nom G) is at least as helpful as for the
works in
the following keys of G, F. Cand D - BUT NB for these the scribe
writes
the G at the upper octave: a distintive feature of the guitar, but not
not
of the period mandora....., etc. Good practical examples include: the
Echo
on f68 where the penultimate bar would be more in period style better
with
a low sixth course G - but the scribe is obliged to notate a
high third course
for this instrument (ie the guitar) which does not poassess a low sixth
G.
=
- As far as I can see nothing in the manuscript sheds any light on
the position of
the high octave strings in the 18th century.
=
-MH: I disagree - see numerous highly relevant observations both in
this, and earlier, notes]
=
As far as I can recall I have never agreed that eighteenth-
century placement of the octave strings might well not be the same as
the earlier seventeenth century usage. On the contrary the fact that
two mid-eighteenth century sources (Corette and Rousseau in Diderot's
Encyclopedie)-
=
[MH: Both late for comparison with D-189 and, further, not guitar
specilaists]
=
-to the placement of the high octave strings on the thumb side of a
course suggests to me that this practice persisted well into the
eighteenth century whatever the style of the music. Corette's music
seems to be fairly standard Galant stuff.
=
[ MH It is not comparable with the works in D189 or Diesel, et als. -
or, indeed,
of the large madora repertoire of the early/mid eigteenth century]
=
========================================================
Original Message----
From: [11]hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: 05/01/2018 14:26
To: "Monica Hall"<[12]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>, "Daniel Shoskes"
<[13]dshoskes@mac.
com>, "VihuelaList"<[14]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subj: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course
guitar stringing
Dear Monica,
Thanks for this.
=
- Further comments on MS D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum
=
-The numbering on the document (by the archivist?) is of folios - not
pages or pdf pages - I think it better to use folios to avoid ambiguity
(eg are your pdf pages in the correct folio sequence?).
=
Folio 48 (presumably your pdf 49) is headed ' Fundamenta Gytarra'Folio
48v (your 50?) is headed 'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora'
=
The principal tuning (given between the first set of double bar
lines) is for a six course mandora or five course gytarra. However,
the low sixth course is only employed for the first few pieces (around
15% only of the entire collection) and the remaining pieces employ a
five course instrument (whether a guitar or a mandora).
=
Particularly relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi (Losy?) on 51V
which employs the sixth course: however, the same piece is again
written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly,
without the sixth course (g) and with the errant note simply
replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice might
have also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol 48v to
57) by a player with only a five course instrument.
=
Finally, F 96 actually has a table for guitar Alfabeto giving both the
usual
shorthand symbolsand their tablature interpretation. This is followed
(96v) by a piece in mixed notation employing both tablature and
Alfabeto
symbols (infact, B, F and G). Whilst telling us nothing unambiguous
about
the instrument's shape, it is yet more weight to suggest a normal
guitar
shaped instrument of the period was expected for the Gytarra.
=
Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads 'Accordo Gytarra
et Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra A Mandore
(perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?). This precise wording
also clearly implies two different instruments but both having the same
basic tuning for five courses - otherwise it would have been 'Gytarra
aliter Mandora', or similar, to show that two different words were in
that case referring to one and the same instrument. I do, of course,
understand that this says nothing explicit about the shape of the
gytarra
(Just because something is called a "cytarra" doesn't mean that it is
a
figure of eight shaped instrument), but I think it highly unlikely to
be
lute shaped like the mandora - else why have the two instruments at
all?
Accordingly, I think, on the balance of probabilities, that the gytarra
was,
indeed, probably shaped differently to the lute - and most likely as
contemporary guitar of the period
=
................. We may simply have to agree to disagree over this.
=
=
- Further comments on Placement of high octaves on the lower courses
=
-I had thought, following our earlier discussion those few years
back, that you agreed that eighteenth century placement of the
octave strings might well not be the same as the earlier seventeenth
century usage.But let me stress: this is not really just about a
'satisfactory bass line' (and you know that we agree that this is not
a
necessary feature of much seventeenth century guitar music) but more to
do with therather different musical style and texture of the later
(early/mid) eighteenth century period.
Regarding the placing of the high octave string on the bass side as
general eighteenth practice, the only source from the early eighteenth
century (the rough date of D-189) which suggests this are Stradivari's
(c 1700) instructions which, in my view, reflects earlier seventeenth
century practice. The placement of the octave string on the lower
courses
was raised in my earlier about MS D-189 because, since we do know
the placement of octaves on the mandora (ie on the treble side of a
course),
D-189 therefore adds some further weight to the placing of these on
both
the instrument(s) actually expected for this music. Finally and
again, we
may have to agree to disagree: - in this case about central/northern
European guitar tuning in the eighteenth century for music like that
in
D189 as well as the interesting works by Diesel later in the
century and
others.......................
Best wishes for 2018.
Martyn
===========================================================
- ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "[15]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <[16]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: VihuelaList <[17]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2018, 15:12
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar
stringing
Dear Martyn, Ralf and anyone else who is interested
First of all, the instrument referred to as a "Cytarra" or "Gytarra"
on p.49 of the pdf (it's easiest to refer to these rather than the
original folio numbers) appears to have 5 stopped courses and one
unstopped bass string. If that is the case it is not a 5-course
guitar. This should really be referred to as either chitarra (Italian)
or
guitarra (Spanish). Some of the tablature pieces are for a 5-course
instrument with a sixth open bass.
The tuning chart on p.50 is for the "Cytarra A Mandore" which
suggests to me that they are one and the same insrument à ¢ a
5-course
instrument with 7 unstopped basses. The piece in tablature which
follows is for
this configuration. Just because something is called a "cytarra"
doesn't mean that it is
a figure of 8 shaped instrument.
The tuning chart on p. 97 à ¢ ignoring the first interval à ¢ the
first three intervals are the standard unison intervals of French
tuning
checks; however the last one indicates that the fifth course is in
unison with the 3rd course stopped at the 2nd fret. There is no
indication that there is a low octave string on the 5th course. The
first interval is odd; the first course can't be in unison with the
3rd course stopped at the 5th fret. I can't really read the heading Ã
¢
but I wonder if it is Accord a whatever the Czech word for unison is.
As for placing the high octave strings on the thumb side of a course
à ¢ Ruiz de Ribayaz mentions this in "Luz y Norte musical (1677). The
fact that several 18th century sources indicate this explicitly
suggests
that it was the standard way of stringing à ¢ regardless of whether
to our ears today this creates a satisfactory bass line. It is all a
matter of how you strike the strings. Having the high string on the
thumb side enables you to use the high octave string on its own more
easily as Corrette indicates.
A happy New Year to everyone.
Monica
=========================================================
----Original Message----
From: [1][18]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
Date: 04/01/2018 11:33
To: "[2][19]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk"<[3][20]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>,
"[4][21]dshos...@mac.com"
<[5][22]dshos...@mac.com>
Cc: "VihuelaList"<[6][23]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>, "Baroque Lute
List"
<[7][24]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subj: Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar stringing
Dear Monica,
=
Comments on D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum
We briefly discussed this interesting MS some four years ago -
partly in the context of the placement of the octave strings on the
fourth
(and fifth) course of the five course guitar. I also recall posting
something on Wayne's baroque guitar list (or was it Early guitar.
ning?....) around this time. I was especially interested in the
stated link in this MS between (aka mandora) and the guitar and
possible
implications for placement of the high octave strings on the fourth
(and fifth?) course.
This MS contains pieces for five course guitar, mandora/callichon,
and the viola di(a) gamb(a). Folio.3 has tunings for a five course
instrument which the MS calls the 'Calledono' and folio 48 (gamba
pieces and blanks between) gives elementary instructions for the
five course guitar ' Fundamenta Chytarra'.
Of special interest is folio 48v headed 'Accorde Chytarra et
Mandora' which unequivocally relates the two instruments and gives
the
identical tuning in note names for both: a, d, g, h(ie B), e.
Especially
note that the note names for each course are all given as low case
(even
the extended basses, see below) and there is no octave or octave
stringing indicated - accordingly from this alone, no conclusive
judgements
can be made whether the source requires re-entrant or low bourdons,
or
what arrangement for bass stringing..
This is followed by instructions for tuning seven addition bass
course) from sixth down to twelfth course (notated by numbers 6
through
to 12): g, f or f#, e, d, c or c#, h(B) or b (Bb), a. However only
the first
musical example employs these additional low basses - and even then
only as an alternative to fingered fifth course which is also notated
-
presumably meant to illustrate the practice.
Playing the music I was struck by how similar they pieces were in
texture to contemporary works for mandora and also the guitar works
attributed to Logy and also, and especially, those by Nathanial
Diesel.
It all made me wonder if the high octave on the 'bass' side was as
general as we all nowadays usually suppose? From the texture of the
music I'm confident that the Diesel is for a low octave on the bass
side - it's also not that much later than the attrib Logy pieces. So
I wonder if in German speaking (and Nordic lands) around this time (ie
early/mid eighteenth century) the practice may have been closer to
the 5 course mandora where the low octave is certainly on the bass
side.
This paper below discusses some possible sources of Logy's
works
=
[8][25]http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Musicology_Today/Musicolog
y_Today-r2004-t1/Musicology_Today-r2004-t1-s77-95/Musicology_Today-
r200 4-t1-s77-95.pdf
=
Placement of high octaves on the lower courses of the five course
guitar
=
The sources which clearly indicate the high octave on the 'bass'
side of the five course are all eighteenth century: principally
Stradivari's (c 1710) instructions for stringing a sort of theorboed
guitar; Diderot in 1757 and Merchi in 1761. A couple of iconographic
sources may, or may not, indicate the earlier placement continuing
into the eighteenth century ......
The placement of the high octave on the 'bass' side in the French
(aka Corbetta) tuning has nowadays been generally accepted and, in
some
circumstances, may seem to resolve some problems of voice leading
etc - conversely it can also do exactly the opposite!
My suggestion is that for much seventeenth century music, voice
leading
jumps etc resulting from a fully re-entrant or French tuning are
simply a
part of the instrument's novel texture and characteristic style, but
that in
the more treble and bass orientated works of the eighteenth century
(eg the above) the bass string of the fourth (and fifth) course is
more
suitable if on the 'bass' side of the guitar
This is much based on my own experience in playing Diesel, the
'Losy' guitar works, D-189 MS and some other late 'guitar' sources on
the
mandora (with its bass strings on the bass side). In my view this
arrangement gives a much more satisfactory musical result for the
style and period of this later music. This is not to do with ensuring
strict
academic part writing but more with the style and texture of this
later music
But, of course, this is something of a subjective
judgement...........
Martyn
=========================================
From: "[9][26]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk"
<[10][27]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: [11][28]dshos...@mac.com
Cc: VihuelaList <[12][29]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 20:28
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript
The music in tablature appears to be for 5-course guitar. There are
a few 5-part chords which could be strummed but it seems to be mainly
in lute style and perhaps mid 18th century. How do we know that the
music is actually by Losy? Which library owns it today? The rest
seems
to be for mandora or gallichon. Martyn may know more about it if he
has
read this.
Monica
Virus-free. [30]www.avast.com
--
References
Visible links
1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
3. mailto:dshoskes@mac.
4. mailto:vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. mailto:baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
6. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
7. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
8. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
9. mailto:dshos...@mac.com
10. mailto:vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
11. mailto:hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
12. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
13. mailto:dshoskes@mac.
14. mailto:vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
15. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
16. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
17. mailto:vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
18. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
19. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
20. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
21. mailto:dshos...@mac.com
22. mailto:dshos...@mac.com
23. mailto:vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
24. mailto:baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
25. http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Musicology_Today/Musicolog
26. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
27. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
28. mailto:dshos...@mac.com
29. mailto:vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
30.
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
Hidden links:
32.
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
33.
file://localhost/net/ifs-users/lute-arc/L15662-9415TMP.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
