I am following this discussion with interest...but it is not entirely
relevant to my original question.
Before I jump in the car and drive off to the Cotswolds ...The theorbo,
chitarrone et al were well established instruments widely used for different
purposes - and came in different sizes and even with different numbers of
strings on the fingerboard.
What is the point in having an instrument which has a guitar shaped body and
extended bases? What advantages would this have over the "standard" lute
type. Why would it be more useful than the theorbe etc.
Can we be certain that Stadivarius's "chitarra atiorbata" was a guitar
rather than a lute? In the absence of a drawing of the body I don't think
we can. It is just an assumption.
It's fairly clear that Granata had such a guitar with extended basses but
this could have been something of his own invention - rather like Carulli's
decawhatever.
When it comes to Gallot's guitarre theorbee - this is obviously a different
instrument and any evidence from Stradivarius is irrelevant.
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Batov" <alexander.ba...@vihuelademano.com>
To: "vihuela list" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:43 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Guitarre theorbe (Strad patterns and lute shaped Cat)
I thought we are discussing 'guitarre theorbe' aren't we? So what is the
point to talk about MS 375 that has nothing to do with the length of the
extended neck? MS 385, on the other side, gives the EXACT LENGTH of the
extended neck. By the way, the template or neck pattern is "what you see is
what you get" sort of thing. In other words it has the exact physical
dimensions as the actual extended neck, or, as it's inscribed on it,
"Measure of the length and width of the neck of the theorboed guitar". So
it is indeed a rather crucial and unique(!) piece of evidence that is
directly relevant to this discussion.
I find it really puzzling why you can't still grasp what Stewart Pollens
is talking about ... Form MME 901d and paper template MS 374 indicate
String Length to Neck Length ratios on 'normal' 5-course guitars, not
theorboed ones! (You can see them listed in the table 12.3 alongside of
the other surviving forms and patterns.) Now, if you apply these ratios to
the pattern MS 375 (which represents the main (fingerboard) neck length of
one of Stradivari's theorboed guitars (but not obligatory the one from
which template MS 385 has survived) you get the following: 318 mm X 2.12 =
674.16 mm, 318 mm x 2.30 = 731.4 mm (rounded to 674 and 731 in Pollen's
text). Add to these values the length of the MS 385 template 921.5 mm and
you'll get 1595 - 1653 mm for diapason strings. There is no need to be so
sceptical about it, it's only down to earth arithmetic! Just try to break
away from your own logic for a moment which is purely speculative (nothing
wrong about it as far as it doesn't stop you from understanding other
people's ideas). Pollens is not working backwards or assuming or
speculating here, he simply deals with the real evidence that is there in
the templates and patterns.
It's getting stranger and stranger towards the end ... You scale down an
instrument (or up, why not!), you'd have to tune it up higher, I mean all
the strings, or vice versa. I don't think anybody in the right mind would
tune fingerboard strings on a 58 cm SL instrument, for example, to E B G D
A nominals (whichever the pitch standard) but rather to G D B-flat F C,
and the diapasons accordingly. I don't really understand your logic here.
"Working backwards from expectations" ... what on earth are you talking
about?
In the end it's entirely up to you whether the lower octave disposition
sounds right or not to you ear ... but then you'd have to discard, for
example, Piccinini's and Melij's music for archlute too. Well, why not.
Alexander
----- Original Message ----- From: "Martyn Hodgson"
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:07 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Guitarre theorbe (Strad patterns and lute shaped
Cat)
I've now found the book and Pollens' article so plse don't bother
copying it to me.
Firstly, I see that we're speaking about two different paper patterns:
one (MS 375, as said) 320mm long with the well known stringing
instructions which I mentioned earlier and one (MS 385) which is 921mm
long which you mentioned. NB these are the lengths of the paper not of
the drawings.
Secondly, I remember why I was sceptical about Stewart Pollens
conclusions: he uses other forms/patterns (E901, MS 374) and says
(without any explanation) that these "indicate" a bass string to
fingered string ratio of 2.12 to 2.3. I think he must have been
working backwards from an assumption, which is precisely what is being
called into question, that the bass stringing was at the lower octave
and therefore needed a long string length.
Finally, having found Grammatica's painting showing the supposed lute
shaped Cat and heard Rob MacKillop playing Granata on a reconstruction
of it (by Wolfgang Emmerbach) with low basses, despite Rob's excellent
playing I'm more than ever persauded that this low octave disposition
does not serve the music at all well. Incidentally, the reconstruction
looks to have been scaled up (maybe by 25/30%) from the size shown in
the painting which was relatively petite (basses around 100cm). Again
perhaps the modern maker worked backwards from expectations and decided
to increase the string length to allow low octave basses.
MH
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
