Talk:Archicembalo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Spelling 2 Tuning 3 Bull? 4 Picture

[edit] Spelling

Both arcicembalo and archicembalo is in use, but as far as I can make out the latter is more correct. Gene Ward Smith 08:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that arcicembalo was Vicentino's own spelling, but archi- is the standard anglicization. The New Grove has it under arci- which is why i spelled it that way in the Vicentino article. I'll fix any redirects. Thanks for starting this article! I've had a note to myself on my to-do list to make a drawing of the keyboard for a while now ... maybe I'll add it to the article soon. Antandrus (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Archicembalo is definitely preffered in English writings. I suppose the difference came out as a clarification of its pronounciation. It might not have worked out though... shouldn't "arcicembalo" in Italian sound as "ar-chee-chem-ba-lo"? Everyone I've ever heard say it says "ar-kee-chem-ba-lo" though. Archipelago is another word that comes to mind... Rainwarrior 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Either the given English spelling, or the pronunciation, or both, don't make sense. The Vicentino spelling in Italian gives the pronunciation /tʃ/ not /k/. If one wishes to anglicize then "archicembalo" is fine, but should be pronounced like "archbishop" or "archfiend" (same as the Italian). The pronunciation "arkicembalo" makes no sense in Italian. "Archipelago" is not really analogous since it is a fully naturalized English word, whereas arc(h)icembalo is a specialized technical term loaned from Italian. As such there is no good reason to anglicize the spelling unless it is to preserve the Italian pronunciation! If the word is spelt "arci-" as in Italian then /tʃ/ is undoubtedly correct (and one should also use italics). I would vote for at least giving two alternative pronunciations. --Tdent 10:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked around a bit, and it seems that a lot of North American musicologists say "ar-kee-chem-ba-lo". I agree that it doesn't make sense given the Italian root of the word, but it's still the pronounciation one is most likely (in my opinion) to encounter from an English speaker. I don't know the etymology, but it's reasonable to speculate that this word might have been in the English language, albeit in a "specialist" repertoire, for a couple hundred years, which can certainly account for the pronunciation shift. (The confusion might stem from the similarity of certain Greek-rooted words such as architect, and archaic.)

Would you mind if I changed "the English spelling might also be taken to denote [arkiˈtʃɛmbalo] as in archipelago." to read "though by English speakers it is more frequently pronounced [arkiˈtʃɛmbalo], as in arcipelago." Or does your experience with the spoken term differ from my own? Rainwarrior 02:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no direct experience: 'asking around' yields contradictory responses. Whatever North American musicologists say now, I think the article ought to contain the original Italian spelling and pronunciation (so far as it can be determined). The question of when it started to be used in English is an interesting one - I would guess, about the time people started doing Renaissance musicology, i.e. 1900. --Tdent 11:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not worth changing solely based on my personal experience, of course. Perhaps a concensus may be gathered... has anyone else ever used "archicembalo" in conversation? Rainwarrior 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuning

I'm not sure it's correct to say that the Archicembalo tuned 31 equal divisions of the octave. The accounts I have read suggest that for the most part it would have been tuned to an adapted form of Meantone temperament. Does anyone have a source for this assertion? (In my hands I have a copy of Henry Kaufmann's article from the Journal of the American Musicological Society, vol. 23, 1970, entitled "More on the Tuning of the Archicembalo" which certainly doesn't suggest an equal temperament at all.) Rainwarrior 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say 31-equal is an adapted form of meantone temperament. If you tuned it to quarter-comma meantone, the pitches separated by 31 fifths would be very close, almost indistinguishable, so the distinction is mostly academic. —Keenan Pepper 23:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I do think the theoretical distinction is important, though, even if the practical one isn't. Rainwarrior 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The link <http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/huygens.html> says Huygens described the traditional meantone tuning, in good approximation, by a selection from 31-ET. Haberg (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Now it's pretty confusing as to why there might be five "near-duplicates" in something that's almost an EDO tuning. I'll do some reading and try and make this a bit more explanatory later. Rainwarrior 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully that's a good start on the article. Rainwarrior 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The link <http://sonic-arts.org/td/schulter/vicentino.htm> says the reason is to provide some provide pure fifths (rational interval 3/2) - in 31-ET, those are 5.18 cents off. If those are excluded (approximating 31-ET keys 5, 10, 18, 23 and 28), and the cent values in the article are correct, the others are 31-ET within 3.3 cents. Haberg (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bull?

What is the source / evidence for John Bull having been an archicembalo player? He would probably have met keyboards with more than 12 notes per octave in the Low Countries, but I don't know of any verifiable archicembalo sightings that far north. --Tdent 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the reference on hand, but I believe it was Gustav Reese's "Music in the Renaissance" where it was suggested that John Bull played an archicembalo (I think if you check the index for archicembalo you might find it). However, Reese's usage of archicembalo might actually extend to all microtonal harpsichords, so under the current definition it might actually be a minor stretch to get Bull in there. (Or might update this page with a mention of this alternate definition?) I can't get to a library at the moment, so I can't gather all of the information together myself for a little while. Do you know of any other composers who came into contact with archicembali? I didn't want to have just one listed. Rainwarrior 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's on Reese page 861, in reference to a chromatic composition of Bull which uses the notes C# and Db, as well as G# and Ab, in the context of a contrapuntal piece in which a subject appears on each chromatic scale degree. "the presence in a single composition of [these notes] ... suggests that the piece may well have been written for some instrument like the arcicembalo." Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you looked it up in under 5 minutes! That's impressive. (I take it you have Music in the Renaissance on your own bookshelf?) Rainwarrior 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, considering I usually work on early music articles, it was open next to my computer, LOL... I didn't even have to move.  ;-) Antandrus (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the reference to Bull, but it might be worth sticking him back in there somewhere. At least, I think it's interesting that Reese would speculate that his particular chromatic style /suggests/ the use of an instrument that might have been inspired by the Archicembalo. Rainwarrior 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Some points here. I know this particular composition (Ut Re Mi fantasia) which is preserved in the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, and it is highly debatable what instrument or tuning it was intended for. The problem is that it seems to require enharmonic *equivalence*, i.e. a closed circle of fifths, since it shifts from sharps to flats within a single bar; whereas with enharmonic instruments one cannot do that without a sudden shift in pitch by about a quarter tone and probably also having some chords out of tune. The purpose of the archicembalo was to play as many chords as possible in tune, so it would not help for this part of the piece. There is an article of Annette Otterstedt that points out that English viol music might well be based on equal temperament (standard 17:18 fretting) and gives some examples of enharmonic equivalence implying a closed circle of fifths - also mentioning that some viol pieces were transcribed for keyboard. Finally, it is a long stretch from an enharmonic keyboard, which might only have G#/Ab and D#/Eb for instance, to an archicembalo. Might be worth mentioning that the archicembalo was somehow an extreme case of a more common practice of providing a few 'extra' notes. --Tdent 11:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been a little while since I've looked at the works of Bull, though I recall the tied enharmonics you're talking about. As I said before, though, I no longer live near a good library (as of a few days ago), so I'll leave it to your discretion. After Antandrus' quote jogged my memory, the John Bull connection has begun to feel gradually more tenuous as I have been thinking about it; it was basically a misremembered reference in the first place on my part.

As far as the required equivalence, the Archicembalo's tunning was specifically designed to be capable of such things (albeit with some unusual looking fingerings), though certainly a keyboard that has merely enharmonic black keys would not (so unless Reese was referring to something ). What requires a "closed circle of fifths"? (And do you mean circle of 12 fifths by this? Vicentino's tuning was basically a closing of the meantone fifth cycle.) I suppose an enharmonic shift followed by a return to the original key via a new route would do this if it is decided that the return must be at the exact same pitch, which is a reasonable enough to decide...

I've read some things about lutes being among the first instruments to have (more or less) equal temperament, though I don't know much about viols. What is 17:18 fretting? I'll take a look for Otterstedt's book once I find myself a new library. (Thanks for the reference.) Rainwarrior 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

is 13 cents short of an octave, so 17:18 was used as a rule of thumb for measuring frets for equal temperament. Hmm, we should probably mention that in the Equal temperament article... —Keenan Pepper 10:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we are slightly at cross purposes here. The Archie had different keys and pitches for (say) G# and Ab, whereas a piece written with a sudden shift from (say) G# minor to Ab major would need the pitches to be equal if there was not to be a sudden lurch. The Bull has a C# in A major right next to a Db in the key of Gb and the simplest interpretation is (IMO) that they were different spellings of the same pitch. By "closed circle of fifths" I mean twelve fifths which return to the starting pitch with an enharmonic shift in notation at some point - as Bull's piece contains. Vicentino's 31-equal tuning only returns to the start after 31 fifths and some really bizarre equivalences such as D##=Fbb... which I expect do not find a use in any music. You could play the Bull on an Archie, but only if you can accept the sudden lurch in pitch which goes with the switch from C# to Db (and F# to Gb etc. etc.) in the middle of a phrase.

The Otterstedt I read was in conference proceedings (Michaelstein) but I would expect some of the same points to appear in the book. Lutes and viols have almost exactly the same principles of tuning, just plucked or bowed respectively. - User:Tdent 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(Pardon me for moving your comments around, but you put yours right in the middle of mine, and it made the threading difficult to follow. ...and you didn't sign them.) What I was saying is that if you don't actually require the piece to end on the same pitch as it started, the Archicembalo can do it without the sudden discontinuity (lurch) that you're talking about. (The actual fingering for this on the archicembalo would involve placing your hand across both manuals at once.) But even beyond that, if this modulation by a comma (which occurs at the enharmonic tie) is allowed to operate in reverse later on in the piece, you actually can recover the starting pitch at that later point. If it does not, and the original key is returned to by another route, you cannot without travelling the whole circle of fifths. Actual written note names can be considered to have a more local tuning when an archicembalo is being used, because you simply can't account for all of them with just flats and sharps: if there is a finer pitch distinction to be made in practice, some names would have to be reused or the notation would have to be augmented to accomodate. (I can't comment on this particular piece right now though because I don't have it in front of me; please don't take me to be arguing about it directly. I do find both sides of the argument interesting though, the case for equal temperament, and the case for an archicembalo. I might actually like to write an article about this; not for wikipedia though.) Rainwarrior 05:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I thought theirs was a reproduction of Trasuntino's 1606 "Clavemusicum Omnitonum". According to Denzil Wraight's list Lewis Jones made one too, it was at London Guildhall University a few years ago. Mireut 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)