Subject: Yet more Re: [VIHUELAR) Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar stringing

From: Martyn Hodgson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:48:22 +0000 (UTC)

Dear Monica.
   My responses are interposed below in bold, new roman and italic for
   clear differentiation (sadly, though, not in my preferred typeface for
   the others on the list version which only goes to them in standard
   typeface and no spacing but, from what Wayne tells me, it'll reach you
   with correct typeface etc)
   I think we must still agree to disagree about much of
   this!..........................
   Best wishes,
   Martyn
     __________________________________________________________________

   From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
   To: [email-masked]; Daniel Shoskes <[email-masked]>;
   VihuelaList <[email-masked]>
   Sent: Saturday, 6 January 2018, 16:41
   Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five
   course guitar stringing
   Unfortunately the folio numbers are not very clear in the pdf. Some of
   the pages seem to have been cropped on the right- hand side when the
   film was made and the recto and verso of each folio is on a single page
   of the pdf.
   -
   [MH: Yes - it's a shame about this]
   -
    I will try to refer to the correct ones.
   To recap
   Folio 48r is headed "Fundamenta Gytarra".
   -
   [MH: Indeed, and not as just 'Cytarra' (or Chytarra) as correctly
   pointed
    out in my last]
   -
    The tablature checks indicate that this instrument has five stopped
   courses and one
   additional unstopped bass course. Folio 48v is headed "Accordo Gytarra
   et Mandora".
   -
   [MH: This is an incorrect assumption. The overwhelming bulk of pieces
   of
    pieces in this MS are clearly written for just a five course
   instrument  (see
   my telling note earlier about the transcription for a five course
   instrument
    - I naturally suggest for gytarra for this version of the same (Losy?)
   piece presented earlier for a six course instrument, the mandora).
   -
   You are right â I agree that these are two different instruments. The
   Gytarra has five
   stopped courses and one unstopped bass as shown in the first section of
   the tablature.
   -
   {MH: No, you've got this mixed up, as explained earlier and again in
   this
    mail. The gytarra has five courses, the madora six. The theorboed
   instrument is probably a theorboed guitar a la Strad or similar......
   -
   The Mandora has seven unstopped basses as shown in the
   second section of tablature. It is to be assumed that the stopped
   courses of both instruments are tuned in the same way. It is not for a
   five course gytarra or a six course mandora as you seem to suggest.
   -
   [MH:  This is a mistaken view of what the source tells us since, as
    already pointed out, most of the pieces (some 85% of them) in the MS
   are for just a five course instrument. You have assumed that the part
   between the first set of double bar lines refers equally to the
   gytarra
   and to the mandora.
   As already explained, this is mistaken because the overwhelming bulk
    of  pieces in the MS are, in fact,  for a five course instrument (the
   gytarra) rather than for the common mandora tuning with six courses.
   I examine this matter again below]
   -
   I don't think either of these two examples refer to an instrument with
   just five stopped courses.
   -
   [ MH: as said above, you appear to have overlooked contrary
   information
   about the tablature already brought to your attention earlier.]
   -
   On Folio 96r there is a table of alfabeto chords and a tablature tuning
   chart headed "Accordo aliud" (?). If that is right I assume it means
   "another tuning" but my Latin or Czech is pretty basic. In the table of
   chords, the open courses to be included are only shown for Chord E;
   Chord is very odd â Indeed, as pointed out, they are wrong -  a B flat
   minor chord with G on the first course. There are stroke marks on the
   lowest line.
   -
   [MH: No - this is a simple bowlderisation and inaccurate
   representation
   of nominal five course guitar tuning (as employed in the following aria
    set in tablature AND with Alafbeto - see my earlier note about this
   feature in this particular piece which has been overlooked). Clearly
   the tuning diagram showing an octave between the open first and fifth
    fret on the third course makes no sense - neither does that between
   the
   third fret of the second course and the open third course! The scribe
   has simply got the courses wrong......
   It is the following aria (on f. 96v not on 96),  identified in my last,
   this
    piece clearly confirms this piece as being in the ordinary nominal
   guitar
   tuning intervals - and not any known lute (or mandora!) tuning. The
   mandora never employed Alfabeto as appears in this work
   -
   As far as the pieces are concerned, whether or not the unstopped sixth
   course is used seems to  depend on the key of the piece. Those on f.
   48v- f.59v which use the sixth course are mostly in C major or keys
   without sharps, whilst those from f. 60r âf.76v are in A major or D
   major  i.e. keys with sharps where there is no call for a low G
   natural.
   -
   [MH: Surely you can't expect us to agree to this procrustean
   interpreation?
   You singularly overlook thebulk of all the pieces also in C to F and
   those
   in G and  D from later in the MS.
   And I've already clearly identified where the same (Losy?) piece was
    tellingly transcribed - which surely disproves your suggestion: 'a
   single counter example ....disproves a proposition......!']
   -
   From f.76v the pieces are numbered starting with 1 which seems to
   represent a new "campaign" of copying. None of them use the unstopped G
   â they could be for 5-course guitar or whatever instrument you wish.
   There is nothing that lends weight to your suggestion that the gytarra
   is a figure of eight-shaped instrument. It is could be lute shaped or
   figure of eight - we simply don't know.
   -
   MH: See my earlier:
   Particularly relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi (Losy?) on 51V
   which employs the sixth course:  however, the same piece is again
   written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly,
   without the sixth course (g) and with the errant  note simply
   replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice might
   have also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol 48v to
   57)
   by a player with only a five course instrument. Finally, F 96 actually
   has a table for guitar Alfabeto  giving both the usual shorthand
   symbols
   and their tablature interpretation. This is followed (96v) by
   a piece in
    mixed notation employing both tablature and Alfabeto
   symbols (in fact,
   symbols B, F and G).  Whilst telling us nothing unambiguous about the
   instrument's shape, it is yet more weight to suggest a normal guitar
   shaped instrument of the period was expected for the Gytarra.
   Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads 'Accordo Gytarra
   et  Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra A
   Mandore (perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?).  This precise wording also
   clearly implies different instruments but both having the same basic
   tuning for five courses - otherwise it would have been 'Gytarra aliter
   Mandora', or similar, to show that two different words were in that
   case
   referring to one and the same instrument.
   I, of course, understand that this says nothing explicit about the
   shape of the gytarra (Just because something is called a "cytarra"
   doesn't
   mean that it is a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I think it
   highly
   unlikely to be lute shaped like the mandora - else why have the very
   similar
   two instruments at all - but with a wholly different name?
   Accordingly, I think, on the balance of probabilities, that the MS's
   gytarra was,
   indeed, probably shaped differently to the lute - and most likely as
   contemporary
   early eigteenth century guitar. Moreover, surely by the early
   eighteenth century
   there was no longer the earlier confusions over the renaissance
   gittern/guitar
   shape.  I therefore see no compelling reason to suggest that, by this
   later
   period, MS D-189 required  a gytarra that was not just an early
   eighteenth
   century gitarra/guitar shaped instrument.
   instrument.
     ................. We may simply have to agree to disagree over this.
   -
   [MH: Further, the numerous gytarra pieces in Cmajor later in the MS
   to those you mention in your reply could very easily be played with a
   low sixth course (as the {Losy?} example well demonstrates)if these
   later pieces were truly, as you suggest, also for a six course
   instrument.
   I think not - it is really stretching remote possibilities too far
   over
   probabilities to suggest otherwise.
   Simply overlooked is that the majority of pieces after F. 67 are in
   keys
   where low G is at least as helpful as for the works on in the
   following
   keys of G, F. Cand D - BUT the scribe writes the G at the upper
   octave:
   a distintive feature of the guitar, butnot not of the period
   mandora....., etc.
    Good practical examples include: the Echo on f68 where the penultimate
    bar would better with a low sixth course G - but the scribe writes a
   high
    third course, guitar appropriate g and numerous similar examples.
   -
   As far as I can see nothing in the manuscript sheds any light on
   the position of
   the high octave strings in the 18th century.
   -
   [MH: I disagree - see numerous highly relevant observations both in
    this, and earlier, notes]disagree- see numerous relevant observations
   above]
   -
   As far as I can recall I have never agreed that eighteenth-century
   placement
   of the octave strings might well not be the same as the earlier
   seventeenth
   century usage. On the contrary the fact that two mid-eighteenth century
   sources (Corette and Rousseau in Diderot's Encyclopedie)
   -
   MH: Both late for comparison withD-189 and further not guitar
   speciaists]
   -
   to the placement of the high octave strings on the thumb side of a
   course suggests to me that this practice persisted well into the
   eighteenth century whatever the style of the music.  Corette's music
   seems to be fairly standard Galant stuff.
   -
    MH Not comparable with the works in D189 or Diesel, et als it isn't
   .......
    or by the large madora reperoire of the early/mid eigteenth cenurt it
   aint]
   -
   Monica
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   ---------------------
   ----Original Message----
   From: [1][email-masked]
   Date: 05/01/2018 14:26
   To: "Monica Hall"<[2][email-masked]>, "Daniel
   Shoskes"<[3]dshoskes@mac.
   com>, "VihuelaList"<[4][email-masked]>
   Subj: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course
   guitar stringing
   Dear Monica,
     Thanks for this.
   -
     Further comments on MS D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum
   -
   The numbering on the document (by the archivist?) is of folios - not
   pages or pdf pages - I think it better to use folios to
   avoid ambiguity
   (eg  are your pdf pages in the correct folio sequence?).
   Folio 48 (presumably your pdf 49) is headed ' Fundamenta Gytarra'
   Folio 48v (your 50?) is headed  'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora'
    The principal tuning (given between the first set of double bar
   lines) is for a six course mandora or five course gytarra. However, the
   low sixth course is only employed for the first few pieces (around 15%
   only of the entire collection) and the remaining pieces employ a five
   course instrument (whether a guitar or a mandora).
   -
   Particularly relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi (Losy?) on 51V
   which employs the sixth course:  however, the same piece is again
   written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly,
   without the sixth course (g) and with the errant  note simply
   replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice might
   have
   also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol 48v to 57)
   by
   a player with only a five course instrument.  Finally, F 96 actually
   has a table for guitar Alfabeto  giving both the usual shorthand
   symbols
   and their tablature interpretation. This is followed (96v) by a
   piece in mixed notation employing both tablature and Alfabeto symbols
   (in
   fact, B, F and G).  Whilst telling us nothing unambiguous about the
   instrument's shape, it is yet more weight to suggest a normal guitar
   shaped instrument of the period was expected for the Gytarra.
   Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads 'Accordo Gytarra
   et  Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra A Mandore
   (perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?).  This precise wording
   also clearly implies
   two different instruments but both having the same basic tuning for
   five
   courses - otherwise it would have been Gytarra aliter Mandora,  or
   similar,
   to show that two different words were in that case referring to one and
   the
   same instrument.
   I, of course, understand that this says nothing explicit about the
   shape of the gytarra (Just because something is called a "cytarra"
   doesn't
   mean that it is a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I think it
   highly unlikely
   to be lute shaped like the mandora - else why have the two instruments
   at all?
   Accordingly, I think, on the balance of probabilities, that the gytarra
   was,
   indeed, probably shaped differently to the lute - and most likely as
   contemporary
   guitar
     ................. We may simply have to agree to disagree over this.
   -
     Further comments on Placement of high octaves on the lower courses
   of the five course guitar
   -
   I had thought, following our earlier discussion those few years
   back,   that you agreed that eighteenth century placement of the
   octave
   strings might well not be the same as the earlier seventeenth century
   usage.
   But let me stress: this is not really just about a 'satisfactory
   bass line' (and you know that we agree that this is not a necessary
   feature of much seventeenth century guitar music) but more to do with
   the
   rather different musical style and texture of the later
   (early/mid) eighteenth
   century period.
   Regarding the placing of the high octave string on the bass side
   as general
   eighteenth practice,   the only source from the early eighteenth
   century (the
   rough date of D-189) which suggests this are Stradivari's (c
   1700) instructions
   which, in my view, reflects earlier seventeenth century  practice.
   The placement of the octave string on the lower courses was raised
   in my earlier about MS D-189 because, since we do know the placement of
   octaves on the mandora (ie on the treble side of a course), this source
   therefore adds some further weight to the placing of these on
   the instrument(s)
   actually expected for this music
   Finally and again, we may have to agree to disagree: - in this case
    about central/northern European guitar tuning in the eighteenth
   century    for music like that in D189 as well as the interesting works
   by
   Diesel later in the century and others.......................
   Best wishes for 2018.
   Martyn
   -
     ----- Forwarded Message -----
     From: "[5][email-masked]" <[6][email-masked]>
     To: VihuelaList <[7][email-masked]>
     Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2018, 15:12
     Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar
     stringing
     Dear Martyn, Ralf and anyone else who is interested
     First of all, the instrument referred to as a "Cytarra" or "Gytarra"
   on
     p.49 of the pdf (it's easiest to refer to these rather than the
     original folio numbers) appears to have 5 stopped courses and one
     unstopped bass string. If that is the case it is not a 5-course
   guitar.
     This should really be referred to as either chitarra (Italian) or
     guitarra (Spanish). Some of the tablature pieces are for a 5-course
     instrument with a sixth open bass.
     The tuning chart on p.50 is for the "Cytarra A Mandore" which
   suggests
     to me that they are one and the same insrument Ã ¢ a 5-course
   instrument
     with 7 unstopped basses. The piece in tablature which follows is for
     this configuration.
     Just because something is called a "cytarra" doesn't mean that it is
   a
     figure of 8 shaped instrument.
     The tuning chart on p. 97 Ã ¢ ignoring the first interval Ã ¢ the
   first
     three intervals are the standard unison intervals of French tuning
     checks; however the last one indicates that the fifth course is in
     unison with  the 3rd course stopped at the 2nd fret. There is no
     indication that there is a low octave string on the 5th course. The
     first interval is odd; the first course can't be in unison with the
   3rd
     course stopped at the 5th fret. I can't really read the heading Ã ¢
   but I
     wonder if it is  Accord a whatever the Czech word for unison is.
     As for placing the high octave strings on the thumb side of a course
   Ã ¢
     Ruiz de Ribayaz mentions this in "Luz y Norte musical (1677). The
   fact
     that several 18th century sources indicate this explicitly suggests
     that it was the standard way of stringing Ã ¢ regardless of whether
   to
     our ears today this creates a satisfactory bass line. It is all a
     matter of how you strike the strings. Having the high string on the
     thumb side enables you to use the high octave string on its own more
     easily as Corrette indicates.
     A happy New Year to everyone.
     Monica
     ----Original Message----
     From: [1][8][email-masked]
     Date: 04/01/2018 11:33
     To: "[2][9][email-masked]"<[3][10][email-masked]>,
     "[4][11][email-masked]"
     <[5][12][email-masked]>
     Cc: "VihuelaList"<[6][13][email-masked]>, "Baroque Lute
   List"
     <[7][14][email-masked]>
     Subj: Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar stringing
     Dear Monica,
     Comments on D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum
     We briefly discussed this interesting MS some four years ago -
   partly
     in the context of the placement of the octave strings on the fourth
     (and fifth) course of the five course guitar. I also recall posting
     something on Wayne's baroque guitar list (or was it Early guitar.
     ning?....) around this time.  I was especially interested in the
   stated
     link in this MS between (aka mandora) and the guitar and possible
     implications for placement of the high octave strings on the fourth
     (and fifth?) course.
     This MS contains pieces for five course guitar, mandora/callichon,
   and
     the viola di(a) gamb(a). Folio.3 has tunings for a five course
     instrument which the MS calls the 'Calledono' and folio 48 (gamba
     pieces and blanks between) gives elementary instructions for the
   five
     course guitar ' Fundamenta Chytarra'.
     Of special interest is folio 48v headed 'Accorde Chytarra et
   Mandora'
     which unequivocally relates the two instruments and gives the
   identical
     tuning in note names for both: a, d, g, h(ie B), e.  Especially
   note
     that the note names for each course are all given as low case (even
   the
     extended basses, see below) and there is no octave or octave
   stringing
     indicated - accordingly from this alone, no conclusive judgements
   can
     be made whether the source requires re-entrant or low bourdons, or
   what
     arrangement for bass stringing..
     This is followed by instructions for tuning seven addition bass
   course
     (presumably a theorboed guitar and/or mandora - both instruments not
     entirely unknown of course) from sixth down to twelfth course
   (notated
     by numbers 6 through to 12):  g,  f or f#, e, d, c or c#, h(B) or b
     (Bb), a.  However only the first musical example employs these
     additional low basses - and even then only as an alternative to
     fingered fifth course which is also notated - presumably meant to
     illustrate the practice.
     Playing the music I was struck by how similar they pieces were in
     texture to contemporary works for mandora and also the guitar works
     attributed to Logy and also, and especially, those by Nathanial
   Diesel.
     It all made me wonder if the high octave on the 'bass' side was as
     general as we all nowadays usually suppose? From the texture of the
     music I'm confident that the Diesel is for a low octave on the bass
     side - it's also not that much later than the attrib Logy pieces. So
   I
     wonder if in German speaking (and Nordic lands) around this time (ie
     early/mid eighteenth century) the practice may have been closer to
   the
     5 course mandora where the low octave is certainly on the bass side.
     This paper below discusses some possible sources of Logy's
     works
   [8][15]http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Musicology_Today/Musicolog
     y_Today-r2004-t1/Musicology_Today-r2004-t1-s77-95/Musicology_Today-
   r200
     4-t1-s77-95.pdf
     Placement of high octaves on the lower courses of the five course
     guitar
     The sources which clearly indicate the high octave on the 'bass'
   side
     of the five course are all eighteenth century:  principally
     Stradivari's (c 1710) instructions for stringing a sort of theorboed
     guitar; Diderot in 1757 and Merchi in 1761. A couple of iconographic
     sources may, or may not, indicate the earlier placement continuing
   into
     the eighteenth century ......
     The placement of the high octave on the 'bass' side in the French
   (aka
     Corbetta) tuning has nowadays been generally accepted and, in some
     circumstances, may seem to resolve some problems of voice leading
   etc -
     conversely it can also do exactly the opposite!  My view is that for
     much seventeenth century music, voice leading jumps etc resulting
   from
     a fully re-entrant or French tuning are simply a part of the
     instrument's novel texture and style, but that in the more treble
   and
     bass orientated works of the eighteenth century (eg the above) the
   bass
     string of the fourth (and fifth) course is more suitable if on the
     'bass' side of the guitar
     This is much based on my own experience in playing Diesel, the
   'Losy'
     guitar works, D-189 MS and some other late 'guitar' sources on the
     mandora (with its bass strings on the bass side). In my view this
     arrangement gives a much more satisfactory musical result for the
   style
     and period of this later music. But, of course, this is something of
   a
     subjective judgement...........
     Martyn
           From: "[9][16][email-masked]"
   <[10][17][email-masked]>
     To: [11][18][email-masked]
     Cc: VihuelaList <[12][19][email-masked]>
     Sent: Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 20:28
     Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript
     The music in tablature appears to be for 5-course guitar.  There are
   a
     few 5-part chords which could be strummed but it seems to be mainly
   in
     lute style and perhaps mid 18th century. How do we know that the
   music
     is actually by Losy? Which library owns it today?
     The rest seems to be for mandora or gallichon.  Martyn may know more
     about it if he has read this.
     Monica

   --

References

   1. mailto:[email-masked]
   2. mailto:[email-masked]
   3. mailto:dshoskes@mac.
   4. mailto:[email-masked]
   5. mailto:[email-masked]
   6. mailto:[email-masked]
   7. mailto:[email-masked]
   8. mailto:[email-masked]
   9. mailto:[email-masked]
  10. mailto:[email-masked]
  11. mailto:[email-masked]
  12. mailto:[email-masked]
  13. mailto:[email-masked]
  14. mailto:[email-masked]
  15. http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Musicology_Today/Musicolog
  16. mailto:[email-masked]
  17. mailto:[email-masked]
  18. mailto:[email-masked]
  19. mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:58:05 +0000 (GMT)

I can't possibly respond to all of this.  You seem to be so muddled 
that it is difficult to grasp what you actually mean..
I think your interpretation of the tablature tuning checks is simply 
wrong. The fact that much of the music does not use the sixth unstopped 
course,(or for that matter the seven unstopped courses of the mandora) 
is irrelevant.  The tablature tuning check for the gytara indicates 
that it has 5 stopped courses and one unstopped bass. You are muddling 
up two different facets of the manuscript. None of this has any bearing 
on how the 5-course guitar was strung.

My analysis of the keys of the pieces is as accurate as I could make in 
the time available.The pieces which use the sixth course are in C major 
or flat keys and the ones which do not are almost all in A major, with 
a few in D major.   The manuscript was obviously copied over a period 
of time.  The pieces from f.76v form a new section with pieces numbered 
1-56, probably copied at a later date.  The manuscript is a very 
complex document.

You also seem to be confused about Stradivarius. It is not clear 
whether these instruments are lute shaped or figure of 8 shaped. The 
surviving patterns are of the neck and pegboxes only. The stringing 
instructions for the one of them indicate that the high octave strings 
are on the thumb side of the course.  

I will have to leave it there.

As ever
Monica

----Original Message----
From: [email-masked]
Date: 07/01/2018 14:48 
To: "Monica Hall"<[email-masked]>, "Daniel Shoskes"<dshoskes@mac.
com>, "VihuelaList"<[email-masked]>, "Baroque Lute List"
<[email-masked]>
Subj: Yet more Re: [VIHUELAR) Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course 
guitar stringing

Dear Monica.
   
Unfortunately the folio numbers are not very clear in the pdf. Some of 
the pages seem to have been cropped on the right- hand side when the 
film was made and the recto and verso of each folio is on a single 
page 
of the pdf.-[MH: Yes - it's a shame about this]-   I will try to refer 
to the correct ones.
To recapFolio 48r is headed “Fundamenta Gytarra”. -[MH: Indeed, and not 
as just 'Cytarra' (or Chytarra) as correctly pointed out in my last]
- The tablature checks indicate that this instrument has five stopped 
courses and one additional unstopped bass course. Folio 48v is headed 
“Accordo Gytarra et Mandora”. -[MH: This is an incorrect assumption. 
The overwhelming bulk of pieces of pieces in this MS are clearly 
written for just a five course instrument  (see my telling note earlier 
about the transcription for a five course instrument  - I naturally 
suggest for gytarra for this version of the same (Losy?) 
piece presented earlier for a six course instrument, the mandora).-You 
are right – I agree that these are two different instruments. The 
Gytarra has five 
stopped courses and one unstopped bass as shown in the first section 
of 
the tablature.  -
{MH: No, you've got this mixed up, as explained earlier and again in 
this mail. The gytarra has five courses, the madora six. The theorboed 
instrument is probably a theorboed guitar a la Strad or similar......
- The Mandora has seven unstopped basses as shown in the 
second section of tablature. It is to be assumed that the stopped 
courses of both instruments are tuned in the same way. It is not for a 
five course gytarra or a six course mandora as you seem to suggest.
-[MH:  This is a mistaken view of what the source tells us since, 
as already pointed out, most of the pieces (some 85% of them) in the 
MS are for just a five course instrument. You have assumed that the 
part between the first set of double bar lines refers equally to the 
gytarra and to the mandora.  As already explained, this is mistaken 
because the overwhelming bulk of  pieces in the MS are, in fact,  for a 
five course instrument (thegytarra) rather than for the common mandora 
tuning with six courses.  I examine this matter again below]-I don’t 
think either of these two examples refer to an instrument with 
just five stopped courses.
-[ MH: as said above, you appear to have overlooked contrary 
information about the tablature already brought to your attention 
earlier.] -On Folio 96r there is a table of alfabeto chords and a 
tablature tuning 
chart headed “Accordo aliud” (?). If that is right I assume it means 
“another tuning” but my Latin or Czech is pretty basic. In the table 
of 
chords, the open courses to be included are only shown for Chord E; 
Chord is very odd – Indeed, as pointed out, they are wrong -  a B 
flatminor chord with G on the first course. There are stroke marks on 
thelowest line. -[MH: No - this is a simple bowlderisation and 
inaccurate representation of nominal five course guitar tuning (as 
employed in the following aria set in tablature AND with Alafbeto - see 
my earlier note about this feature in this particular piece which has 
been overlooked). Clearly the tuning diagram showing an octave between 
the open first and fifth fret on the third course makes no sense - 
neither does that between the third fret of the second course and the 
open third course! The scribehas simply got the courses wrong...... It 
is the following aria (on f. 96v not on 96),  identified in my last, 
this piece clearly confirms this piece as being in the ordinary nominal 
guitar tuning intervals - and not any known lute (or mandora!) tuning. 
Themandora never employed Alfabeto as appears in this work-As far as 
the pieces are concerned, whether or not the unstopped sixth 
course is used seems to  depend on the key of the piece. Those on f.
48v- f.59v which use the sixth course are mostly in C major or keys 
without sharps, whilst those from f. 60r –f.76v are in A major or D 
major  i.e. keys with sharps where there is no call for a low G 
natural.
-[MH: Surely you can't expect us to agree to this procrustean 
interpreation?You singularly overlook thebulk of all the pieces also in 
C to F and those in G and  D from later in the MS.And I've already 
clearly identified where the same (Losy?) piece 
was tellingly transcribed - which surely disproves your suggestion: 
'a single counter example ....disproves a proposition......!']-From f.
76v the pieces are numbered starting with 1 which seems to 
represent a new “campaign” of copying. None of them use the unstopped 
G 
– they could be for 5-course guitar or whatever instrument you wish. 
There is nothing that lends weight to your suggestion that the gytarra 
is a figure of eight-shaped instrument. It is could be lute shaped or 
figure of eight - we simply don't know.
-MH: See my earlier:Particularly relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi 
(Losy?) on 51V
which employs the sixth course:  however, the same piece is again
written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly,
without the sixth course (g) and with the errant  note simply 
replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice 
mighthave also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol 
48v to 57)by a player with only a five course instrument. Finally, F 96 
actually has a table for guitar Alfabeto  giving both 
the usual shorthand symbolsand their tablature interpretation. This is 
followed (96v) by a piece in mixed notation employing both tablature 
and Alfabeto symbols (in fact, symbols B, F and G).  Whilst telling us 
nothing unambiguous about theinstrument's shape, it is yet more weight 
to suggest a normal guitar shaped instrument of the period was expected 
for the Gytarra.Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads 
'Accordo Gytarra 
et  Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra 
A Mandore (perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?).  This precise wording 
also clearly implies different instruments but both having the same 
basic tuning for five courses - otherwise it would have been 'Gytarra 
aliterMandora', or similar, to show that two different words were in 
that casereferring to one and the same instrument.I, of course, 
understand that this says nothing explicit about the
shape of the gytarra (Just because something is called a "cytarra" 
doesn'tmean that it is a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I 
think it highlyunlikely to be lute shaped like the mandora - else why 
have the very similartwo instruments at all - but with a wholly 
different name?Accordingly, I think, on the balance of probabilities, 
that the MS's gytarra was,indeed, probably shaped differently to the 
lute - and most likely as contemporaryearly eigteenth century guitar. 
Moreover, surely by the early eighteenth century there was no longer 
the earlier confusions over the renaissance gittern/guitar shape.  I 
therefore see no compelling reason to suggest that, by this 
laterperiod, MS D-189 required  a gytarra that was not just an early 
eighteenth century gitarra/guitar shaped instrument.
instrument.  ................. We may simply have to agree to disagree 
over this.
-[MH: Further, the numerous gytarra pieces in Cmajor later in the MS to 
those you mention in your reply could very easily be played with a low 
sixth course (as the {Losy?} example well demonstrates)if these later 
pieces were truly, as you suggest, also for a six course instrument.I 
think not - it is really stretching remote possibilities too far 
over probabilities to suggest otherwise. Simply overlooked is that the 
majority of pieces after F. 67 are in keys where low G is at least as 
helpful as for the works on in the following keys of G, F. Cand D - BUT 
the scribe writes the G at the upper octave: a distintive feature of 
the guitar, butnot not of the period mandora....., etc. Good practical 
examples include: the Echo on f68 where the penultimate bar would 
better with a low sixth course G - but the scribe writes a high third 
course, guitar appropriate g and numerous similar examples.-As far as I 
can see nothing in the manuscript sheds any light on the position of 
the high octave strings in the 18th century.  -[MH: I disagree - see 
numerous highly relevant observations both in
 this, and earlier, notes]disagree- see numerous relevant observations 
above]-As far as I can recall I have never agreed that eighteenth-
century placement of the octave strings might well not be the same as 
the earlier seventeenth century usage. On the contrary the fact that 
two mid-eighteenth century 
sources (Corette and Rousseau in Diderot’s Encyclopedie)-MH: Both late 
for comparison withD-189 and further not guitar speciaists]-to the 
placement of the high octave strings on the thumb side of a 
course suggests to me that this practice persisted well into the 
eighteenth century whatever the style of the music.  Corette's music 
seems to be fairly standard Galant stuff.
- MH Not comparable with the works in D189 or Diesel, et als it isn't 
....... or by the large madora reperoire of the early/mid eigteenth 
cenurt it aint]-Monica

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message----
From: [email-masked]
Date: 05/01/2018 14:26 
To: "Monica Hall"<[email-masked]>, "Daniel Shoskes"
<dshoskes@mac.
com>, "VihuelaList"<[email-masked]>
Subj: [VIHUELA] Further to Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course 
guitar stringing

Dear Monica,

  Thanks for this.
-  Further comments on MS D 189 Moravske zemske muzeum
-The numbering on the document (by the archivist?) is of folios - not
pages or pdf pages - I think it better to use folios to 
avoid ambiguity (eg  are your pdf pages in the correct folio 
sequence?).
Folio 48 (presumably your pdf 49) is headed ' Fundamenta Gytarra'Folio 
48v (your 50?) is headed  'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora'
 The principal tuning (given between the first set of double bar 
lines) is for a six course mandora or five course gytarra. However, 
thelow sixth course is only employed for the first few pieces (around 
15% only of the entire collection) and the remaining pieces employ a 
five course instrument (whether a guitar or a mandora).-Particularly 
relevant here is the Rondeau C. Loschi (Losy?) on 51V
which employs the sixth course:  however, the same piece is again
written out later in the collection (Rondon f.75) but, tellingly,
without the sixth course (g) and with the errant  note simply 
replaced by the open third course. Precisely the same practice might 
have also been readily followed for the few earlier pieces (fol 48v to 
57) by a player with only a five course instrument.  Finally, F 96 
actually has a table for guitar Alfabeto  giving both the usual 
shorthand symbolsand their tablature interpretation. This is followed 
(96v) by a 
piece in mixed notation employing both tablature and Alfabeto symbols 
(infact, B, F and G).  Whilst telling us nothing unambiguous about the
instrument's shape, it is yet more weight to suggest a normal guitar
shaped instrument of the period was expected for the Gytarra.
Regarding the heading on 48v, this actually reads 'Accordo Gytarra 
et  Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora) - not Cytarra A Mandore
(perhaps the pdf is a poor copy?).  This precise wording 
also clearly implies two different instruments but both having the same 
basic tuning for fivecourses - otherwise it would have been Gytarra 
aliter Mandora,  or similar,to show that two different words were in 
that case referring to one and thesame instrument.I, of course, 
understand that this says nothing explicit about the
shape of the gytarra (Just because something is called a "cytarra" 
doesn'tmean that it is a figure of eight shaped insturment), but I 
think it highly unlikelyto be lute shaped like the mandora - else why 
have the two instruments at all?Accordingly, I think, on the balance of 
probabilities, that the gytarra was,indeed, probably shaped differently 
to the lute - and most likely as contemporaryguitar  ................. 
We may simply have to agree to disagree over this.
-  Further comments on Placement of high octaves on the lower courses 
of the five course guitar-I had thought, following our earlier 
discussion those few years 
back,   that you agreed that eighteenth century placement of the 
octave strings might well not be the same as the earlier seventeenth 
century usage.But let me stress: this is not really just about a 
'satisfactory 
bass line' (and you know that we agree that this is not a 
necessary feature of much seventeenth century guitar music) but more to 
do with therather different musical style and texture of the later 
(early/mid) eighteenthcentury period.Regarding the placing of the high 
octave string on the bass side as generaleighteenth practice,   the 
only source from the early eighteenth century (the rough date of D-189) 
which suggests this are Stradivari's (c 1700) instructionswhich, in my 
view, reflects earlier seventeenth century  practice.The placement of 
the octave string on the lower courses was raised 
in my earlier about MS D-189 because, since we do know the placement 
ofoctaves on the mandora (ie on the treble side of a course), 
this sourcetherefore adds some further weight to the placing of these 
on the instrument(s)actually expected for this musicFinally and again, 
we may have to agree to disagree: - in this case about central/northern 
European guitar tuning in the eighteenth 
century    for music like that in D189 as well as the interesting works 
by Diesel later in the century and others.......................Best 
wishes for 2018.
Martyn
-  ----- Forwarded Message -----
  From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
  To: VihuelaList <[email-masked]>
  Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2018, 15:12
  Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Moravsky Manuscript AND five course guitar
  stringing
  Dear Martyn, Ralf and anyone else who is interested
  First of all, the instrument referred to as a "Cytarra" or "Gytarra" 
on
  p.49 of the pdf (it's easiest to refer to these rather than the
  original folio numbers) appears to have 5 stopped courses and one
  unstopped bass string. If that is the case it is not a 5-course 
guitar.
  This should really be referred to as either chitarra (Italian) or
  guitarra (Spanish). Some of the tablature pieces are for a 5-course
  instrument with a sixth open bass.
  The tuning chart on p.50 is for the "Cytarra A Mandore" which 
suggests
  to me that they are one and the same insrument Ã¢ a 5-course 
instrument
  with 7 unstopped basses. The piece in tablature which follows is for
  this configuration.
  Just because something is called a "cytarra" doesn't mean that it is 
a
  figure of 8 shaped instrument.
  The tuning chart on p. 97 Ã¢ ignoring the first interval Ã¢ the 
first
  three intervals are the standard unison intervals of French tuning
  checks; however the last one indicates that the fifth course is in
  unison with  the 3rd course stopped at the 2nd fret. There is no
  indication that there is a low octave string on the 5th course. The
  first interval is odd; the first course can't be in unison with the 
3rd
  course stopped at the 5th fret. I can't really read the heading Ã¢ 
but I
  wonder if it is  Accord a whatever the Czech word for unison is.
  As for placing the high octave strings on the thumb side of a course 
Ã¢
  Ruiz de Ribayaz mentions this in "Luz y Norte musical (1677). The 
fact
  that several 18th century sources indicate this explicitly suggests
  that it was the standard way of stringing Ã¢ regardless of whether 
to
  our ears today this creates a satisfactory bass line. It is all a
  matter of how you strike the strings. Having the high string on the
  thumb side enables you to use the high octave string on its own more
  easily as Corrette indicates.
  A happy New Year to everyone.
  Monica
  ----Original Message----
  From: [1][email-masked]
  Date: 04/01/2018 11:33
  To: "[2][email-masked]"<[3][email-masked]>,
  "[4][email-masked]"
  <[5][email-masked]>
  Cc: "VihuelaList"<[6][email-masked]>, "Baroque Lute List"
  <[7][email-masked]>
  works [8]http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Musicology_Today/Musicolog

        From: "[9][email-masked]" <[10][email-masked]>
  To: [11][email-masked]
  Cc: VihuelaList <[12][email-masked]>