> I must apologise for that - some of my comments aren't meant to be taken > too seriously. I sometimes forget that you might understand what I am > saying > in a different way.
Immediately accepted. Let's all learn Dutch. > That is really the whole point. Statements of any kind. I'm afraid the world of the baroque guitar needs some guidelines. > > It is likely that there has been a group in France > > > of > > > > guitarists, tuning in re-entrant tuning (see Briceno, 1626 and > Mersenne, > > > > 1636). Consider the next scenario: at some stage (1650? 1660? 1670?) > > > someone > > > > in France had begun to add a low d to the 4th course. > > There simply is no proof that this was so. This could have happened > anywhere. In Rome for example. True, that is possible. Only from Italy there is no single indication for it. From France there is at least some. Also Sanz didn't say anything about it. We may suppose he had not encountered the French tuning there. On the other hand we can be quite sure that Corbetta, Carre and Visee encountered the re-entrant tuning in France. And we do not suppose they invented the French tuning all three. > > Carre and Corbetta > > > in > > > > 1671, or before (I don't think it is useful to speculate on who was > > > first), > > > > supported this idea, as we can read in their books. > > I think that there is not much doubt that this was Corbetta's idea. Why Corbetta? This really needs more explanation. > In fact he is as likely to > have used a > re-entrant tuning as a young man. The pieces in 1639 are mostly strummed > apart from some very simple pieces in mixed style. I would now suggest > that he started to use an octave string on the 4th course perhaps as early > as > 1643. What makes you think that French tuning is any better for Corbetta's book from 1643 than the tuning with 2 bourdons? Is there any indication for the tuning in the music from 1639? 'Mostly strummed' is really not of any help. Montesardo and Sanseverino are also strummed, and in bourdon tuning. In so far as it is possible to determine these > things I would say that it is definitely intended for a re-entrant tuning. > The 5th course is used almost exclusively as a treble string, Why is it that I don't see that? I see bass notes all over the place! although the > 4th course has a dual purpose. An I that I do see this clearly..... > This seems to me quite clear if the part writing is correctly realized. > Look at the examples Martin and I have mentioned. I'll send my comments on that in a separate posting > I'm sorry Lex, but I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue that they > indicate anything other than the intervals between the strings. Many > people, including Pinnell have explicitly said that they don't. For those on > the > list who may not be sure what we are talking about, Lex is referring to > verbal tuning instructions and tablature tuning checks like those found > at the end of the introduction to Granata's 1646 book. Many Italian guitar > books include similar instructions - often garbled. If interpreted > literally, they imply that the instrument is to be tuned throughout in > unisons, with no high octave strings. (This may have been the case for > strummed music sometimes.) The tuning charts help the student with the subsequent steps of the process of tuning. I agree that the high octaves are not mentioned. As in similar instructions for the lute or the theorbo. That doesn't change the way they were intended to be used, most likely. They actually work just as well for the "French" > tuning. I don't think so. Not for the poor student who started with the a of the 5th course, as indicated by the tuning chart. If we have managed to tune at last, there is the tuning check (of which Foscarini and Pesori say it is in octaves. Others, later, may have taken that for granted). With the re-entrant tuning or French tuning, octaves and unisons would be mixed up here. Why would someone do that? > The only Italian books which clearly describe stringing methods are > Montesardo(1601), Sanseverino, (1622) and Valdambrini (1646/7). And Foscarini and Banfi. Descriptions are just another way of giving the tuning. > > > > It is a working hypothesis. > > But nothing more. Should I say, a 'working' hypothesis. > This was me, Lex! I think it is a valid comment. I discussed the matter in > detail with you in private. I also listened to the disc several times > following the tablature and read your CDROM files carefully. I don't think > that you can say that I have a one-sided understanding of the course of > events. I listened to it again recently, and it seems to me that what you > are doing with the low octave string is to double the melodic line > intermittently an octave belong. I still find this a bit off putting. I should not have mentioned you in this way. First of all I must say that I understand your position as a reviewer. Nowadays performers use all kinds of tunings and I don't wish to dispute your right to express your opinion. In fact I should thank you for the many kind words you said about my Corbetta CD. In one of your postings to this list you remarked: > 'The problem here as I see it is that all these people who make recordings seem to think they have a hot line to the composer - they are "very confident" - to quote one of them - that the composer intended the music to be played in the way that they play it. Unfortunately each and every one of them has a completely different idea as to how the music should sound and plays it in a completely different way - starting with the different methods of stringing they happen to favour!' That is exactly when I entered the discussion. I said: > 'They are not necessarily all wrong.... At least some may even make use of the same stringing arrangement as the composer had on his guitar.' That is still my point. Lex To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
