The guitar in the sixteen-seventies - Early Guitars and Vihuela2024-03-29T15:50:22Zhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/forum/topics/the-guitar-in-the-sixteen-seventies?commentId=2111060%3AComment%3A140619&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noVersion 06.01.21. Two new par…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2021-01-06:2111060:Comment:1466142021-01-06T14:38:04.012ZLex Eisenhardthttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/LexEisenhardt
<p><br/>Version 06.01.21. Two new paragraphs added on page 12</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.lexeisenhardt.com/file/The_Guitar_in_the_Sixteen-Seventies.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.lexeisenhardt.com/file/The_Guitar_in_the_Sixteen-Seventies.pdf</a></p>
<p><br/>Version 06.01.21. Two new paragraphs added on page 12</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.lexeisenhardt.com/file/The_Guitar_in_the_Sixteen-Seventies.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.lexeisenhardt.com/file/The_Guitar_in_the_Sixteen-Seventies.pdf</a></p> < Prima’, ‘seconda’, and ‘…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2021-01-03:2111060:Comment:1452362021-01-03T11:00:34.180ZLex Eisenhardthttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/LexEisenhardt
<p>< Prima’, ‘seconda’, and ‘terza’ simply refer to the different versions, first. second and third version. . . Your suggestion . . . that some of the pieces are intended to be played by three guitars tuned a fifth apart is not very sensible. Not very practical and how would anyone know?</p>
<p>> This issue is really is more complex than it may seem. I hope to find the time to get back to it soon. Perhaps it would be better to start a separate thread then.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>< I have…</p>
<p>< Prima’, ‘seconda’, and ‘terza’ simply refer to the different versions, first. second and third version. . . Your suggestion . . . that some of the pieces are intended to be played by three guitars tuned a fifth apart is not very sensible. Not very practical and how would anyone know?</p>
<p>> This issue is really is more complex than it may seem. I hope to find the time to get back to it soon. Perhaps it would be better to start a separate thread then.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>< I have listened to your recording with the score in front of me . . . my impression is that the bourdons overwhelm the treble strings to such an extent that it is difficult to pick out the melodic line. . . The bourdons are more resonant and ring on longer obscuring everything else. . . The quasi ‘campanella’ passages e.g. in the allemande at bar 14, 16, 35 and 37 sound uneven – the notes on the 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> courses are too loud and prominent. . . I liked your recording of De Visee much more than the Corbetta. Perhaps my eyes and ears deceived me but I thought you were not using a bourdon on the 5th course...</p>
<p>> Although your reaction is regrettable, it’s hardly surprising considering the difficulty you seem to have to generally accept a fifth-course bourdon, even if the possibility that the composer has used it himself cannot be ruled out with certainty. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>To summarize a few comments made earlier:</p>
<p>Almost everyone seems to use the French tuning for Italian solo music, even if there is no proof at all to support that this was done. Based on the available evidence, it would probably be better to choose between conventional or re-entrant tuning. </p>
<ol>
<li>The standard tuning chart is found in quite a number of sources (for example in Corbetta 1639, Foscarini’s books, and Granata 1646) and it is therefore logical to assume that the conventional tuning has been used a lot.</li>
<li>Even though it is still possible that an individual composer included this chart despite using a different tuning himself, we have to acknowledge that there is no firm evidence for that.</li>
<li>This is to some extent similar to the uncertainties surrounding Corbetta's 1671 book: there still is the possibility (no matter how probable or unlikely one might consider it to be) that Corbetta has echoed Carré's advice because he realised that by putting it like this it offered a convenient way of making clear that the patently inappropriate re-entrant tuning should be avoided.</li>
</ol>
<p> </p>
<p>It is rather strange to uniformly choose for the French tuning now, based solely on the conviction that 'the music works best' that way. After all, this is entirely subjective and the reasons given are debatable to say the least. Besides, we actually know very little about the true reasons why the French tuning is often used nowadays. My guess is that this is because it has been propagated by Tyler (and a few other experts).</p>
<p> </p> P.S, In 1976 Richard Pinnell…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2021-01-01:2111060:Comment:1442552021-01-01T11:56:07.899ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p>P.S, In 1976 Richard Pinnell claimed that Corbetta used octave stringing on the 4th and 5th courses for his first three books and that the "French" tuning was new in 1671. Another unsubstantiated idea still repeated without question.</p>
<p>I liked your recording of De Visee much more than the Corbetta. Perhaps my eyes and ears deceived me but I thought you were not using a bourdon on the 5th course...</p>
<p>P.S, In 1976 Richard Pinnell claimed that Corbetta used octave stringing on the 4th and 5th courses for his first three books and that the "French" tuning was new in 1671. Another unsubstantiated idea still repeated without question.</p>
<p>I liked your recording of De Visee much more than the Corbetta. Perhaps my eyes and ears deceived me but I thought you were not using a bourdon on the 5th course...</p> Thanks for your detailed comm…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2021-01-01:2111060:Comment:1440152021-01-01T10:54:08.676ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p>Thanks for your detailed comments. For practical reasons I will copy-paste mine into it.</p>
<p> < I understand what you are saying, but don’t agree. In his later books there are several pieces that have a ‘prima’, ‘seconda’, and ‘terza’. Considering the different keys, they may well have been intended to be played together on three guitars of a different size.></p>
<p></p>
<p>Most alfabeto books include versions of the pieces in different keys. ‘Prima’ ‘seconda’ and ‘terza’…</p>
<p>Thanks for your detailed comments. For practical reasons I will copy-paste mine into it.</p>
<p> < I understand what you are saying, but don’t agree. In his later books there are several pieces that have a ‘prima’, ‘seconda’, and ‘terza’. Considering the different keys, they may well have been intended to be played together on three guitars of a different size.></p>
<p></p>
<p>Most alfabeto books include versions of the pieces in different keys. ‘Prima’ ‘seconda’ and ‘terza’ simply refer to the different versions, first. second and third version. Many of the pieces in the first section of Foscarini’s later books are included in ‘Libro secondo’ (1639) and in Colonna where they are referred to simply as ‘Spagnolette diverse’, ‘Pavaniglie diverse’ etc… You have jumped to the conclusion that because the instructions are included in the later books, these must include some pieces for three guitars. This does not follow. Corbetta’s 1639 book does not include pieces for 4 guitars. Your suggestion (note 13, p. 216) that the some of the pieces are intended to be played by three guitars tuned a fifth apart is not very sensible. Not very practical and how would anyone know? Very time consuming to work out which ones.</p>
<p> < Actually, I do use thin bourdon strings myself, as you might be able to see (and hear) on my recent videos. This is all about the instrumental balance: the high octaves on the fourth and fifth courses should preferably be of a relatively low tension, as they are struck by the thumb and should not overwhelm the higher courses. As a consequence, the bourdons should be rather thin too, to match the tension of the octaves, for similar reasons. And not because of what Sanz (and Gill) would have said about minimizing the difference in thickness (and tension?), for ease of playing ornaments etc.></p>
<p>So – you know better than Sanz?</p>
<p>What you say isn't very clear. Presumably you mean that the high octaves placed on the thumb side should not overwhelm the bourdons placed below them on the instrument as held. If players did not want the higher octaves to overwhelm the bourdons, they wouldn’t have strung the instrument in that way. The whole point about having them like that is so that they are more prominent.</p>
<p>I have listened to your recording with the score in front of me. Of course, it is difficult to judge from a recording like this, but my impression is that the bourdons overwhelm the treble strings to such an extent that it is difficult to pick out the melodic line. The quasi ‘campanella’ passages e.g. in the allemande at bar 14, 16, 35 and 37 sound uneven – the notes on the 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> courses are too loud and prominent. The bourdons are more resonant and ring on longer obscuring everything else. The balance between the strummed chords and passage work is also unsatisfactory. There is no light or grace to your performance.</p>
<p><strong> </strong> < Understanding things from the past is often about trying to find a plausible relation between known facts and context.></p>
<p>What exactly do you mean by that?</p>
<p> < In Corbetta 1639 there is also a number of pieces in mixed battuto-pizzicato style. Foscarini, Pesori (whatever you may think of his works), and others have included music in mixed style too, in books that also include a standard tuning chart.></p>
<p>Corbetta 1639 includes 8 short experimental pieces which are of no great musical merit. They are unlike anything in his later books. It is by no means self evident that the pieces in Book five of Foscarini are intended to be played with the tuning described in the preface. Pesori’s books are so bad that it is impossible to take them seriously.</p>
<p> < However, the accordatura and the prova must always be consistent with each other. > </p>
<p>Why? In what way?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> . . . and the reason why many players prefer it is because they find that the music works best that way. </p>
<p> < Fair enough. But my question actually was what reasons there could have been for holding on to this barely substantiated idea.></p>
<p> </p>
<p>What reason could there be for holding onto to any other unsubstantiated idea?</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>With all due respects to the writer in question, some time ago an article was included in a prestigious collection of essays suggesting that guitarists in northern Italy always used bourdons on the 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> courses whilst those in the south used the re-entrant stringing. There is no evidence to support such a proposition. Nevertheless, many people promptly accepted it without question.</p>
<p> The available evidence (rather than speculation) suggests that, whether or not we like it, re-entrant tunings were preferred for a number of very good reasons and the music works best when we use them.</p> Thanks for your detailed comm…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2020-12-30:2111060:Comment:1431322020-12-30T18:21:25.851ZLex Eisenhardthttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/LexEisenhardt
<p>Thanks for your detailed comments. For practical reasons I will copy-paste mine into it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> The last section of my study of Foscarini <a href="http://www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini" rel="nofollow">www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini</a> is a detailed comparison of Foscarini’s “Libro secondo” with surviving books of Colonna. It is reasonably certain that all of Foscarini’s material has been copied from earlier sources. I suggest you read it.</p>
<p> < As a matter of fact…</p>
<p>Thanks for your detailed comments. For practical reasons I will copy-paste mine into it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> The last section of my study of Foscarini <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini">www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini</a> is a detailed comparison of Foscarini’s “Libro secondo” with surviving books of Colonna. It is reasonably certain that all of Foscarini’s material has been copied from earlier sources. I suggest you read it.</p>
<p> < As a matter of fact I did.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> Whilst on the subject, note that Foscarini’s instructions for tuning three guitars to play together are copied from Colonna and he has included one piece for three guitars and two for two guitars with separate parts clearly marked. Although these instructions appear in the later book(s) none of the alfabeto pieces this includes are intended to be played by 3 guitars together. You don’t seem have realized this. Example 4.4 and comments on p. 88 of your book make no sense.</p>
<p> < I understand what you are saying, but don’t agree. In his later books there are several pieces that have a ‘prima’, ‘seconda’, and ‘terza’. Considering the different keys, they may well have been intended to be played together on three guitars of a different size.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> I would have expected you to start by setting out in full what Corbetta himself says about this in both the Italian and French prefaces and to comment on different interpretations of it.</p>
<p>> Donald Gill suggested that the “una piciol ottaua” refers to the guage of the string to be used. It is important to keep the difference in thickness between the two strings of a course to a minimum – something which Sanz refers to.</p>
<p> < Actually, I do use thin bourdon strings myself, as you might be able to see (and hear) on my recent videos. This is all about the instrumental balance: the high octaves on the fourth and fifth courses should preferably be of a relatively low tension, as they are struck by the thumb and should not overwhelm the higher courses. As a consequence, the bourdons should be rather thin too, to match the tension of the octaves, for similar reasons. And not because of what Sanz (and Gill) would have said about minimizing the difference in thickness (and tension?), for ease of playing ornaments etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> Instead, all you have done is argue that Corbetta is telling other (French) players to do something different from what he did himself. There is no way that you can prove that this is so. </p>
<p> < Indeed, I can’t. Understanding things from the past is often about trying to find a plausible relation between known facts and context.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> You argue that the tuning charts which appear in an assortment of Italian books printed from the 1620s onwards prove that tuning with octave stringing on fourth and fifth courses was standard in Italy throughout the 17<sup>th</sup> century and this must therefore have been the method of stringing which Corbetta used throughout his life.</p>
<p> < Like you, I have labeled these tuning charts as ‘standard’, because they appear very often. I did not, of course, intend to say that no other tuning at all could have been used.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> Most of the sources which include versions of these instructions, including Corbetta’s 1639 book, are collections of alfabeto pieces to be strummed for which any method of stringing is suitable.</p>
<p> < In Corbetta 1639 there is also a number of pieces in mixed battuto-pizzicato style. Foscarini, Pesori (whatever you may think of his works), and others have included music in mixed style too, in books that also include a standard tuning chart.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> At first sight it may seem obvious that the checks represent unisons and octaves but in practice they are simply two alternative ways of checking whether the instrument is in tune.</p>
<p> < However, the accordatura and the prova must always be consistent with each other. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>> You claim that there is little sound evidence to support the French/re-entrant tuning. There are in fact more clear and unequivocal references to it than to your preferred option . . .</p>
<p> < My preferred option would be to play the music with the stringing that seems to be most appropriate, based on the available evidence. What I really said is that there is very little evidence to support the idea that this particular tuning chart could as well have been used to indicate re-entrant (or French) tuning.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>> . . . and the reason why many players prefer it is because they find that the music works best that way. </p>
<p> < Fair enough. But my question actually was what reasons there could have been for holding on to this barely substantiated idea.</p> The last section of my study…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2020-12-30:2111060:Comment:1427162020-12-30T10:22:03.438ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p>The last section of my study of Foscarini <a href="http://www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini">www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini</a> is a detailed comparison of Foscarini’s “Libro secondo” with surviving books of Colonna. It is reasonably certain that all of Foscarini’s material has been copied from earlier sources. I suggest you read it.</p>
<p>Whilst on the subject, note that Foscarini’s instructions for tuning three guitars to play together are copied from Colonna and he has included one piece…</p>
<p>The last section of my study of Foscarini <a href="http://www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini">www.monicahall.co.uk/foscarini</a> is a detailed comparison of Foscarini’s “Libro secondo” with surviving books of Colonna. It is reasonably certain that all of Foscarini’s material has been copied from earlier sources. I suggest you read it.</p>
<p>Whilst on the subject, note that Foscarini’s instructions for tuning three guitars to play together are copied from Colonna and he has included one piece for three guitars and two for two guitars with separate parts clearly marked. Although these instructions appear in the later book(s) none of the alfabeto pieces this includes are intended to be played by 3 guitars together. You don’t seem have realized this. Example 4.4 and comments on p. 88 of your book make no sense.</p>
<p>I thought that your article was about the guitar in the sixteen-seventies and specifically baroque guitar stringing for the works of Francesco Corbetta and Gaspar Sanz.</p>
<p>I would have expected you to start by setting out in full what Corbetta himself says about this in both the Italian and French prefaces and to comment on different interpretations of it.</p>
<p>Auerti di mettere una piciol ottaua alla seconda Corda che e D. Sol re perche li dui unissoni non fanno Armonia come anche le mie sonate lo ricercano; e batti sempre le consonanti con la mano et il polzo insieme che ti riuscira piu armoniosa la batuta.</p>
<p>Note that you should put a small [thin] octave on the second [i.e. fourth] course] which is D sol re [i.e. D on the middle line of the bass stave, a low D], because the two in unison do not make the harmony which my sonatas also seek; and always strike the chords with the hand [fingers] and thumb together, which will make the stroke more harmonious.</p>
<p>Ie uous auertis de mettre une Octave à la 4<sup>me</sup> Corde de.la.re.sol. parceque les deux unissones ne composent point d’harmonie, et battez auec la main et le pouce ensemble les consonnantes doucement, afin d’avoir plus d’harmonie.</p>
<p>I advise you to put an octave on the fourth course, d la re sol because the two in unison never make harmony, and strike the chords with the hand [i.e. fingers] and the thumb together in order to have the most harmony.</p>
<p>Donald Gill suggested that the “una piciol ottaua” refers to the guage of the string to be used. It is important to keep the difference in thickness between the two strings of a course to a minimum – something which Sanz refers to.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To my knowledge you have ignored the Italian preface in every permutation of this article. Instead, all you have done is argue that Corbetta is telling other (French) players to do something different from what he did himself. There is no way that you can prove that this is so. </p>
<p>You argue that the tuning charts which appear in an assortment of Italian books printed from the 1620s onwards prove that tuning with octave stringing on fourth and fifth courses was standard in Italy throughout the 17<sup>th</sup> century and this must therefore have been the method of stringing which Corbetta used throughout his life. There is no way that you can prove that this is so either. </p>
<p>The earliest surviving source of these charts is Millioni’s “Quarta impressione del primo, secondo, et terzo libro d’intavolatura” printed in 1627. There were presumably three earlier editions and it was reprinted and plagiarized to the end of the 17<sup>th</sup> century. </p>
<p>Most of the sources which include versions of these instructions, including Corbetta’s 1639 book, are collections of alfabeto pieces to be strummed for which any method of stringing is suitable. None of them mention that the 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> courses are octave strung or offer any advice about tuning them. At first sight it may seem obvious that the checks represent unisons and octaves but in practice they are simply two alternative ways of checking whether the instrument is in tune. Incidentally you have ignored Costanza’s instructions which are different but not necessarily less typical. It is largely down to accidents of preservation.</p>
<p>You claim that there is little sound evidence to support the French/re-entrant tuning. There are in fact more clear and unequivocal references to it than to your preferred option and the reason why many players prefer it is because they find that the music works best that way. </p>
<p> </p> I fail to see how this would…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2020-12-29:2111060:Comment:1424402020-12-29T15:52:35.346ZLex Eisenhardthttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/LexEisenhardt
<p>I fail to see how this would possibly impact Foscarini’s tuning. Although Foscarini may have copied parts from Colonna’s introduction, I’m not aware that he copied the tuning chart and check as well.</p>
<p>Stefano Pesori made a considerable effort to include them in several of his books, in different formats, and it probably was just practical for him to reuse available information, to indicate the tuning that he used himself. It is the kind of information that would have been circulating…</p>
<p>I fail to see how this would possibly impact Foscarini’s tuning. Although Foscarini may have copied parts from Colonna’s introduction, I’m not aware that he copied the tuning chart and check as well.</p>
<p>Stefano Pesori made a considerable effort to include them in several of his books, in different formats, and it probably was just practical for him to reuse available information, to indicate the tuning that he used himself. It is the kind of information that would have been circulating widely, in the public domain.</p>
<p>It may be true that Corbetta has not indicated that the intervals in the tuning check are octaves. The point is, however, that we should probably follow the instructions in the same order as they are presented in the book. If we would take the first chart (the accordatura) at face value and follow the information step by step we will be checking the courses to one another in unison — which is, incidentally, exactly how the tuning of the courses 6 – 1 of the lute was done.</p>
<p>Next, we will turn to the ‘prova’, which, as Foscarini would say, can be used ‘to test if the guitar is tuned [correctly], . . . it will all be octaves’.</p>
<p>[On a closer look at the concept of ‘checking whether 'notes' are sounding the same in whatever octave’, it becomes clear that, also with 17<sup>th</sup>-century tuning charts for the lute, notes that actually will be there (being the high octave strings, when checking the bass courses) could as well be compared to fretted notes, in unison.]</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the face of it, this alternate interpretation seems very odd. The assumption that the interval between a fretted course and the next open course could be anything other than an unison is completely counter-intuitive. The idea that this chart could as well have been intended to serve for re-entrant tuning would therefore require credible supporting evidence. It is very inconvenient that this never seems to have been discussed unambigously in any 17<sup>th</sup>-century source.</p>
<p>Although we may assume that a re-entrant guitarist simply played the music, this cannot serve as proof that this chart was intended by the composer (or the compiler) to also represent this particular way of stringing. Moreover, as we can see with Valdambrini and Sanz, there were other (and better) ways to indicate re-entrant tuning.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It raises the question of why so much weight is attached to an idea for which there is so little sound evidence, and what could have been the reasons, in the 1970s and after, to vigorously promote it.</p> However you are happy to igno…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2020-12-27:2111060:Comment:1406192020-12-27T16:10:13.260ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p>However you are happy to ignore anything else that does not support your own theory. Foscarini's charts are included in his earlier Secondo libro which is a plagiarized version of books by Colonna and he has included them with other information in the later books regardless of whether it is relevant. Pesori has probably copied them thoughtlessly from Foscarini.</p>
<p>Corbetta has not indicated that the intervals in his second chart are octaves. It is just as likely that they are intended to…</p>
<p>However you are happy to ignore anything else that does not support your own theory. Foscarini's charts are included in his earlier Secondo libro which is a plagiarized version of books by Colonna and he has included them with other information in the later books regardless of whether it is relevant. Pesori has probably copied them thoughtlessly from Foscarini.</p>
<p>Corbetta has not indicated that the intervals in his second chart are octaves. It is just as likely that they are intended to check stopped courses with open courses and other key intervals which is important when ensuring the instrument is in tune overall. The only interval that must be an octave is the first.</p>
<p>What is interesting is that where second checks are included they are not the same in every source.</p> Again, I would prefer not to…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2020-12-27:2111060:Comment:1405792020-12-27T11:11:56.863ZLex Eisenhardthttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/LexEisenhardt
<p>Again, I would prefer not to ignore those checks which indicate that they are in octaves.</p>
<p>Best, Lex</p>
<p>Again, I would prefer not to ignore those checks which indicate that they are in octaves.</p>
<p>Best, Lex</p> Thank you for this Lex.
Yes,…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2020-12-27:2111060:Comment:1406882020-12-27T09:49:16.034ZMartyn Hodgsonhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MartynHodgson
<p>Thank you for this Lex.</p>
<p>Yes, as said earlier, the lute tablature tuning checks serve the same purpose as those on the guitar (ie to check whether 'notes' are sounding the same in whatever octave). </p>
<p>Accordingly, I'm not convinced that the guitar tablature checks are fundamentally any different to those on the lute (and other plucked instruments, such as the callichon/mandora) - although, of course, we might wish them to be to better reflect our own personal views on how some…</p>
<p>Thank you for this Lex.</p>
<p>Yes, as said earlier, the lute tablature tuning checks serve the same purpose as those on the guitar (ie to check whether 'notes' are sounding the same in whatever octave). </p>
<p>Accordingly, I'm not convinced that the guitar tablature checks are fundamentally any different to those on the lute (and other plucked instruments, such as the callichon/mandora) - although, of course, we might wish them to be to better reflect our own personal views on how some early instruments were tuned.</p>
<p>regards</p>
<p>Martyn</p>