Bordones & Sanz

[Chris Despopoulos]

Ok... One more burning question for me. Actually, Martin McDowell brings this up in another thread about Jerry Willard. Having just gotten an instrument I am (of course?) beginning with Gaspar Sanz - hey, the facsimiles are free. I also have tried playing some pieces with bordones and without. Oddly enough, I found that the re-entrant tuning is imperative in some passages, but the unison for the G string then introduces the same problem for other passages. In other words, it seems removing the bordones minimizes the likelihood of breaking a melodic line, but doesn't eliminate it. It would seem that Zanz did not write around the G string in a way to completely eliminate the problem. (Understandable -- That would have been too restrictive, and probably not in keeping with the ethic of the times.)

I can provide examples where I find the bordones called for, if you like. (It may be a good idea, because the problem could well be my ignorance.)

Anyway, I find that I can convincingly play with bordones, and only strike the higher octave when the melodic line calls for it. I say convincingly because it doesn't always work out (in the excitement of playing a passage), but the higher voice does come through. Definitely, for many passages it's worth the effort to *not* strike the lower note at all... The sound is angelic.

I tried listening closely to the performances posted here, and I can't decide whether I'm hearing bordones or not.

So the question is, how many people prefer to play the Sanz tabalatures without bordones? Should I take them off and spend a month getting used to that sound? Or should I try to be fancy and strike them discretely? What are your opinions and experiences?

[James Tyler]

Guitarists through the ages have always strung and played their instruments in any way they chose to. For Sanz's music I think it would be a good idea to see what Sanz himself says about the matter, and he does so in his own 1674 book on fols. 5v-7. He describes all kinds of stringing used by various players, including bourdons on the fourth and fifth courses. Of this he says that they are good for people who play noisy, popular music (musica ruidosa) or for those playing from a bass line. He then states his reasons for prefering a totally re-entrant stringing with no bourdons for the performance of sophisticated solo music (such as he is writing).

In my book, The Guitar and Its Music (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) I translate what Sanz has to say on p. 152.

Related to the use or not of bourdons on the fourth or fifth is the question of using an upper octave on the third course as well (if the instrument has a short enough string length). There are many places in Sanz's music which suggest this possibility. Again, this is an issue discussed in the book.

[Chris Despopoulos]

Yes, I see that he likes even-thickness strings for left-hand ornamentation, and it looks like he's saying that harmonies can be obscured by bordones... "...si hazes la letra, o punto E, que es Delasolre, en la musica sale la quinta vacante en quarta bajo..." This is pretty confusing to me. It looks like "Delasolre" is a reference to solfeo, but I'm not sure in what capacity. "Of La Sol Re" would be A G D. "Of the Sol Re" would be G D. But the italic and hyphen makes it look like a specific term. Anyway, something like, "If you play an E ( aka Dm according to the abecedario - my head is spinning), which is Delasolre (whatever that means), in the music you have the fifth vacant (5th string open?) in the fourth bass (4th string?), which confuses the principal bass and adds a bit of imperfection when you consider the counterpoint expression..." Something like that. Or maybe he's just saying that a Dm chord will have too heavy a bass A note if you use bordones, and that obscures the tonic. (I still want to know what Delasolre is...)

I'm impressed with how compact the writing is, and also how short-winded, compared to Spanish writers from eras when printing must have been considerably cheaper. Unamuno is capable of a single sentence that is two pages long.

Sanz says nothing about an octave on the G string, but that sounds like an intriguing idea. I think it underscores the notion that the musical problems are diminished by removing bordones, but not eliminated. For unwashed classical guitarists like myself, eliminating these problems was always stated as the reason to use the original instrument.

Anyway, I definitely will spend more time without bordones. I just wondered what the general practice is among members of the group.

[Juan Pablo Pira]

Alamilre Gesolreut and the like are the names for specific notes more or less like the numbers system that uses a4 c3 d2 and the like of the lines system that uses c' c'' c,,. Delasolre solud not be understood as "of la sol re" but as D-la-sol-re.

How does that work?
Try to think of it like this: back then you were taught how to read music using only 6 names ut re mi fa sol la. Read about hexachords. No si or ti... you don't need that note name if you use this movable system. You have to learn to sing that sequence ut re mi fa sol la and get used to singing a smaller (only one half-step) interval ONLY between mi and fa. So if you are singing a b and then a c you would have to move the whole six notes and sing mi fa for those two sounds. This leads to a note having different names depending on its function in a melody.

The whole thing runs like this (it does not quite line up... I wish I could use another font, but I hope the idea is clear):

Gamma--- UT( low G)
A--- RE
B--- MI
C--- FA--- UT
D--- SOL-- RE
E--- LA--- MI
F--- FA--- UT
G--- SOL-- RE--- UT
a--- LA--- MI--- RE
b-flat---- FA
b-nat---- MI
c--- SOL-- FA--- UT
d--- LA--- SOL-- RE
e--- ----- LA--- MI
f--- ----- FA--- UT

and so on. So, when Sanz says that the G string should be tuned to Gesolreut he is speaking about the G we write in the second line in a staff for guitar music... or the G below middle C if you are using a piano (or organ, like Sanz) to tune to.

Delasolre is a high D. Sanz is telling you that the alfabeto chord he calls E (E is just a name... he could have called it any other thing, but Montesardo or some other Italian decided to use a letter name - no relationship to the note e) is a good chord to play when you are singing a D. By the way, Spanish guitarrists also used another set of names... dedillo, puente, cruzado, patilla, bacas,... which is just as arbitrary.

I hope I didn't make this even more confusing.

Regarding bordones on a g-string... M. Lorimer has suggested to use octaves on that string for Murcia's music.

[Chris Despopoulos]

You did not make it more confusing. Thanks so much for pointing the topic to hexachords. This is precisely the level of detail I hope to get.

[James Tyler]

Juan Pablo Pira has answered your Dlasolre question excellently. Regarding octaves on the third course, there is historical evidence for it and masses of music which suggest it in Italian sources. Remember that Sanz himself says that he studied guitar with the "Roman masters", particularly Lelio Colista (whose music, by the way, frequently suggests octaves). Sanz says he is familiar with the music of several Italian guitarists. The Roman guitarist, Valdambrini, is quite specific, in his tuning chart, that there should be a totally re-entrant stringing with no bourdons, and his music constantly calls for octaves on the third course in his many campanella passages. Scholars such as Gary Boye have made a strong case for its use in the music of Granata, one of the guitarists cited by Sanz.

As a player, I have used third course octaves for years, and it makes sense in so much music. If an octave is not used, one can substitute an appropriate note on another course, a question of fingering which relates to your other discussion in the forum.

[James Tyler]

The octaves on the 3d do not create a different set of octave jumps when playing scales because the course is treated like the 4th course with octaves: you select which note in the course you want to play, the upper alone or both together (assuming you string the upper octave on the outside). The incongruous octave episodes "adding colour", though, would have been heard just as often as not because lots of players probably didn't use an octave on the 3d, just as today. I think that playing in a manner that conveys the musical sense is what an octave strung third course is all about. The Bologna manuscript AA 360 and Modena manuscript Campori 1612 are two which show pretty clearly in their tuning charts and descriptions that the octave g is certainly an option open to guitarists.

[Chris Despopoulos]

I think this gets at my original "problem", which is that re-entrant tuning can always put your left hand in a situation that requires a questionable drop of an octave. Notice I say it *can*, not *must*. Adding an octave to the G course at once demonstrates this, and provides a solution. The solution is to discretely play that course and choose your octave. Different fingerings present another solution, but risk limiting the composition or performance possibilities.

This comes back to my original question... Why not use bordones on the lower two strings, and discretely pluck them? And more to the question, how common is that as a performance practice?

The reason not to -- Gaspar Sanz himself seems to frown on that approach. Well, he literally says the choice is up to you, depending on the kind of music you want to make. But he does say that if you want to be modern (and delicate), you will drop the bordones. The implications are pretty clear. But why would he not then mention an octave on the third course?

Because I'm ignorant, I get to speculate with no risk. What if keeping bordones while playing en estilo punteado turned out to be a super-advanced technique that he simply didn't want to go into in his brief treatise? Maybe he wanted to keep some proprietary techniques to himself, maybe he didn't want to be confused with old-fashioned styles, or maybe he just didn't want to go into it.

Certainly, many people agree that there are phrases with melodic problems, bordones or no. (Someone here already suggested refingering a passage to avoid an octave jump... Something I already hit upon but was afraid to reveal to this group!) It seems odd to me that a composer would write those problems into the music. In speedy passages (such as the Jacaras) I can see letting an octave jump blend into the texture. But for lyrical passages I find it odd, especially since I believe adherence to the line of a voice was paramount in composition of the time. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that!)

I agree that these jumps may indeed be a delightful characteristic of Sanz's music. But I wonder if there's evidence for writing such jumps into music for other instruments? In other words, I wonder if such jumps would be acceptable either to a formal student or a formal audience? Would they not reveal limitations of the guitar, and hence limit its acceptance? Or would this be part of the evidence for octaves on the G? (Still piqued that he didn't explicitly mention that...)

I'm trying to take advantage of this group. If I had the luxury to study music and history formally, I would ask these things in a class. In lieu of that I'm asking them here -- not trying to prove anything, just asking some questions. I'm grateful for the very illuminating replies so far.

[James Tyler]

To reply to Chris's question about bordones: First, if bordones are on the 5th course then, when you play chord solos, such as alfabeto pieces, a great many of the chords will sound with prominent wrong inversions. A number of contemporary theorists criticised the guitar for this very reason, which means that a lot of players, particularly unschooled ones, were doing it. The bordone on the 5th can sound very intrusive and overbearing if it's constantly playing the wrong sounds. Just try playing an alfabeto solo on a modern classical guitar; it sounds awful! A bordone on the 4th is far less overbearing, and when there are not bordones, just alto and treble ranged notes, the chords sound as a unified and neutral "block" of harmony with no prominent chord inversions. This, by the way, was just what the "new" music (Italian monody in the age of Monteverdi) required, and was a reason that there are so many hundreds of vocal pieces with alfabeto, including those by Monteverdi himself.

The guitar remained a 5 course instrument from the 1580's to nearly the end of the 18th century because it was uniquely unlike other instruments such as the lute or theorbo, and had its own idioms and sound to recommend it. To try to make the the guitar into an inferior lute or, like the guitarist Guerau, into a nationalistic 16th century vihuela, is not a good idea. Only with the rise of late Classical and Romantic music did the guitar change into the instrument we know today. I think it is a good idea to try to understand the baroque instrument on its own terms and not relate it to pre-conceived notions gained from the modern instrument. With only 5 courses, the early instrument will always have some unavoidable anonomilies, but with a real understanding of what the instrument is supposed to do, we can minimise them.
As far as an octave on the 3d course, Sanz probably didn't go into it because he could not assume that all guitarists could string up their instrument in that fashion. Before the days of nylon strings, a thin gut string would quickly break if tuned up too high on a guitar with a long vibrating string length. Many surviving early guitars have string lengths even into the 70-72 cm range (the modern standard is 65 cm). With gut strings and octave g wouln't be possible. But, on the other hand, many other guitars are shorter. I play on a copy of a Tielke one with a 63 cm string length and I find that all gut stringing works fine, though to be safe, I generally tune to a pitch standard a little lower than modern A = 440 HZ. It is likely that many other guitarists, like Sanz, didn't mention the 3d octave because it was limited only to players with the right kind of instrument.
Sorry this has been a long "lecture", but I feel passionate about understanding the baroque guitar.

[Chris Despopoulos]

I feel a need to wrap up a little bit. First, I'm very grateful for the information that has been revealed by James, Juan Pablo, and Martin. All of it very provoking and useful. The main thing I take away is the need to study the thinking about music as it was at the time. I've read some, but obviously not enough. I suppose I need to find some more, maybe starting with James' book. This is not just about the guitar, but it is very much about the guitar.

That said, I have to defend the approach I've taken so far, which is to take the music at face value, with my own prejudices and experiences, and try to make sense of it. I believe there's also value in that. Anyway, if you have an instrument in your hands, and some tabalatures, you have to play, don't you? No matter how authentic your playing, if you get musical pleasure or value out of the act, that makes it worth while.

James mentions the harmonic difficulties with the bordone on the A string (as does Sanz). I think every (modern) guitarist discovers that very issue early on, and learns to avoid the A or E string for certain chords. The importance of grasping historical musical thought is illustrated by Sanz when he describes how to play alfabeto... He says to strum all the strings for every chord form. As a modern guitarist I simply don't take that literally. As a historical guitarist perhaps I should -- and be distressed at the use of bordones. So while I can take the music on its own and expect what is universally musical to apply, I recognize the delight in learning to see the music as it was seen at the time. No way around it, that's a lot of work. Again, thanks go to people who have already done the hard part and organized things for the rest of us.

For me this conversation was useful in that it highlighted areas I need to explore. It's daunting at first to jump into a new instrument. I certainly want to interpret the music on my own terms. But I also want to know the music on its original terms as best as I can. If I can bring my own interpretation around to the original terms, then I have truly traveled in time... That's what it's all about, isn't it? That and making good music?

So thanks again for the valuable input. And thanks to Rob for hosting this site.

[Chris Despopoulos]

Ok, so I blew out the bordon on the D string, so I switched to no bordones. In fact, this has been a revalation fo rme. Some of the Sanz pieces are problematic without bordones -- the "Fuga primera por primer Tono al ayre Espanol" is an example... I just can't make it work without bordones.

BUT...

I just posted two pieces -- the Pasacalle sobre la De and the famous Canarios as examples of la guitarra sin bordones, and the effect is amazing. The Canarios sounds like a wind-up toy. Granted, I'm not playing up to the level that it needs, but you can hear what the effect should be. Basically, I'm finding that many of the pieces in the Sanz manuscript are more enjoyable, more complex, more fun to play, and more... well... Baroque wihout the bordones.

Go to my profile page to hear the recordings. The music I posted isn't the greatest in terms of performance. I make lots of mistakes, and I'm not clear on how to interpret the Canarios yet. It needs even more intimacy and that delicate feel, I think. But you can tell I really did the recordings because you can hear the rumble of the subway in the background, and other urban noises. But I hope they convey the delight of this music.

I still have trouble finding performers who play without bordones. At least on the Web it seems all the videos are with bordones, whether top-notch players or amateurs like myself. I find that hard to understand. Now I need help understanding which other composers should be played without bordones...

[Chris Despopoulos]

Oh no! Is that another discussion to open up? Nails?!?!? Here, and I cut mine off and I don't even have a lute (or a clue, apparently). I thought the right hand technique for the guitar was to be very similar to that for the vihuela and lute. I'm reminded of an engraving I saw once - a room-full of well-dressed old gents breaking chairs over each other's heads -- titled something like, "Guitarists discuss the use of the nails."

[Chris Despopoulos]

Well, my instrument came with strings attached -- Saverez, probably rectified nylon. I started asking about strings when I noticed the shredded windings on my D-string bordone. I'm sure I'll go with rectified nylon, and I found the Saverez web page. I just thought New York might have dealers who know enough to carry a good range of early-music strings. Oddly enough, it seems not to be the case.

I have indeed cut my nails, and so far I like the response on my instrument. The strings are so fine, I have troubles with nails catching on them. Also, I find that I play more lightly without nails. I think the revelation for me about removing bordones is that a very light touch can be quite appropriate. That's the direction I intend to explore for the time being, at least.