I agree with all that. 3-point counterpoint is just a way of describing
it. 3-part harmony perhaps. I mean a passage which is meant to be in 3
parts. You are not supposed to include the open courses except the ones he
has indicated.
4- course guitar music is full of 6/4 chords - the equivalent of Chord N
without the 5th course occurs frequently. There may be ways of minimising
their effect but the Old Ones don't seem to have been worried by them. The
same is true of cittern music - every other chord is a 6/4.
Monica
Well, I agree that unless there's compelling reasons against we should
generally play the full 5 courses of the alfabeto chord given even when
it gives a theoretical inversion. As we've discussed before, a
strummed 5 course guitar gives a sort of platonic model of a chord with
no regard to things like inversions etc and in many cases I don't find
it at all offensive to the ear (and neither did the Old Ones - see
below). But I can't see that a more skilled player (like Valdambrini
clearly was when it came to strumming) couldn't be more discriminating
when he wished to be and that we shouldn't do likewise if able to -
which was the reason I gave the example of such precise play
(incidentally I'm not convinced it comes across as 'three part
counterpoint' when strummed as you suggest).
The earlier 4 course repertoire can tell us something too. For such an
instrument in A: one of the commonest chords is the F chord but
generally found without the root F in the bass! - both in contexts
requiring a plucked chord as well as a strummed chord. Whether you
play with the bourdon outwards (ie struck with the thumb first) or
reversed (as on the 5 course guitar) you either get a first inversion
or second inversion which they seemed to happily accept in the vast
majority of cases. On those few occasions where they felt they just
couldn't live without the bass F they employed the 'Old tuning' with
the fourth course a tone down to F - this is similar as being
discriminatory by using partial strumming with the 5 course instrument
to sometimes avoid a particularly unwanted inversion In short, the
ambiguity of the tunings and its acceptability seems to have been
generally established with the gittern and not just with the later 5
course instrument, but clearly there were times when a more precise
chording was required. I'm not suggesting at all that this was the
general rule - I don't know - but I do believe it allows some latitude.
M
--- On Mon, 15/11/10, Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
From: Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Valdambrini's evidence
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Vihuelalist" <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Monday, 15 November, 2010, 12:41
Yes. But this is not partial strumming in the sense which I am
referring
to. It is a passage in 3-part counterpoint which is intended to be
strummed. The are passages like this in Foscarini and Corbetta.
What is being suggested is that we should partially strum 5-part chords
although the notation indicates that all five should be included. For
example - that we should omit the 5th course from Chord G although all
the
tables of chords indicate that it should be included and sources in
French
tablature - including Corbetta and Grenerin - write the chord out in
that
way.
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Monica Hall" <[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: "Vihuelalist" <[3]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:09 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Valdambrini's evidence
>
>
>
> Monica writes: 'Valdambrini's first book was printed in Rome seven
> years after Landi died (1646). He not only gives instructions for
> re-entrant tuning but clearly
> states that the instrument has no basses.' Also of course she
might
> have added that he very clearly indicates octaves in the
Avvertimenti
> (both in Italian AND French tablature) thus once again confirming
fully
> re-entrant for his music.
>
> As a further aside, I like V's penchant for carefully controlled
> strumming (ie not 'thrashing') - clearly he had an advanced
technique
> allowing him to exclude certain courses at will(partial
> strumming). Many examples such as second book: bottom of page 29 in
the
> variatione on a ciaccona. I've previously suggested this was a well
> established practice by 1646 - at least for some if not for Colonna
and
> Sanseverino.
> M.
> --- On Mon, 15/11/10, Monica Hall <[4]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> From: Monica Hall <[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Stefano Landi
> To: "Lex Eisenhardt" <[6]eisenha...@planet.nl>
> Cc: "Vihuelalist" <[7]vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Date: Monday, 15 November, 2010, 8:32
>
> > We don't know which tuning predominated in the circles around
> Landi,
> > for example.
> Well - we have some ideas. One of his contemporaries in Rome was
> Kapsberger, and it was from Kapsberger that Mersenne obtained his
> information about how the guitar was strung - i.e. with a fully
> re-entrant
> tuning. Kapsberger published two books of guitar music now lost.
> Valdambrini's first book was printed in Rome seven years after
Landi
> died
> (1646). He not only gives instructions for re-entrant tuning but
> clearly
> states that the instrument has no basses.
> Kircher gives the re-entrant tuning in Musurgia Universalis printed
in
> Rome
> 1650.
> And of course rather later Sanz also says that guitarists in Rome
used
> the
> re-entrant tuning.
> Just straws in the wind..............
> From our XXIc position it is difficult to know exactly who
> > used what tuning, or which composer was exposed to one way of
> tuning or
> > the other. If one way of stringing is very usual among your
friends
> or
> > in your town there would be no reason to say anything about it.
> Therein lies the problem. If none of us can be certain a position
of
> relativity is inevitable. The relativity is ours rather than
theirs.
> > It supposes that in the 17th century 'they' had a sort of
> relativism,
> > with respect to the tuning and theoretical issues. The first
> attempts
> > of Focarini and Corbetta from around 1640, to apply the figures
and
> > voice-leading of basso continuo on the guitar, give a different
> > picture.
> In what way? Even if this was so in what way is it relevant to
what
> players did earlier?
> Monica
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > [1][8]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. [9]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
References
1.
http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
3. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
5. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
6. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=eisenha...@planet.nl
7. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vihu...@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
9. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
