> Strizich devoted a larger portion of his article(s) exactly to the question > of the bass not being the lowest note. He mentiones the 'incorrect' > inversions in the instructions of Fleury and Bartolotti, and he sees an > argument in these to suppose a permissive attitude towards the appearance of > the bass, not as the lowest note. He departs from the classical theorbo > tuning with the first and second strings tuned an octave lower. Others have > repeated this argument, that could be invalid after all.
Or completely irrelevant, since we are dealing a different instrument. But both Campion and Delair do seem to imply that the theorbo did sometimes have a problem with the order of notes - Delair in particular says that the order doesn't matter, provided the bass is played first. > > Is it? I have never heard that argument before in connection with > Grenerin. > > Read Thomas Christensen 'The spanish baroque guitar and 17th century triadic > theory' in the Journal of Music Theory 36 (1992) p.31. Christensen has taken > his examples from Nigel North's book on continuo playing. I actually re-read Christensen's article before replying to your message. (It was I who gave you a copy of it.) He doesn't actually seem to refer to the problem in these terms, although this is his subtext. There are some obvious errors in his article but one can hardly blame him since he took his information from Nigel North. If Linda is correct, then a lot people are going to have to revise some of their ideas about the theorbo. However, it may simply turn out that these "theorbo" books are have no bearing on the guitar. They were intended for amateurs who were ambitious - and perhaps wealthy - enough to invest in a leuto tiorbato. The guitar books were not. > > > Take a look at "Falloit-il, o Dieux" in GR1671. I don't think he had > octave > > stringing on the 5th course in mind for the first few bars anyway. The > bass > > part is on the 4th course until bar three, when the F sharp suddenly > appears > > in the countertenor register. A 6-3 instead of root position (or 6-4) , > > then "French" tuning to the end of the line. Then a quick change of > > stringing for the next bar, and back to "French" until the cadence. He > > must have been a prestidigitator . > > If you only knew what that man could do... > I avoid to speak about Corbetta's exercises because I think that they are a > complete mess. That of course is a value judgement. They serve their purpose. You were actually speaking about his exercises. I was speaking about one of his vocal pieces and the accompaniment seems to me quite acceptable. It consists mainly of standard alfabeto chords... with a certain amount of lofty academic adjustments and works quite well in practice - with the "French" tuning. It even features on of his lovely cadences with doubled suspended fourth at the end. This style of accompaniment is characteristic of the guitar. Even Matteis freely uses standard chords in most of his exercises - including ones which will be 6-4s. That is why the first scholar is expected to learn them by heart - so that he will recognise them when he starts on the more complex examples. It is not intended that he should only use them only to strum simple accompaniments before moving on to higher things. Your whole argument does (I have some reason to believe) rests on a premise (which you haven't actually mentioned yet) - that many of the notes clearly notated in the tablature are only there for decorative purposes and are meant to be omitted. There is no physical evidence for this. > > M (a lovely 6-4 chord - with octave stringing on the 5th course). > Foscarini even devoted a dance to you, on p. 4 of his 5 libri. In alfabeto > of course. And of course there are lots of lovely pieces on "Madre, non mi far...... Monica" To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
