Pitch in Viols and Harpsichords in the Renaissance

Author(s): Nicholas Mitchell

Source: The Galpin Society Journal, Vol. 54 (May, 2001), pp. 97-115
Published by: Galpin Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/842449
Accessed: 09/12/2008 12:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=gal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Galpin Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Galpin Society
Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
 NICHOLAS MITCHELL

Pitch inViols and

Harpsichordsin the
Renaissance

A COMMON EUROPEAN STANDARD

It has been generally assumed in examining problems of pitch before the
modern era that there was a variation in the standards employed
throughout Europe. With respect to music of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, this is largely true. However, it is perhaps a mistake to
assume that this chaotic state of affairsalso applied to the earlier period of
the renaissance and the end of the middle ages. The purpose of this article
is to extend and justify the theories proposed in an article I originally
published in 1995 in the Galpin SocietyJournal, and, I hope, bring its main
contentions to a wider audience.' Firstly I attempt to defend the principle
of a low keyboard pitch roughly two tones below modern pitch as a basis
for the others in use in the Renaissance through an examination of the
Ruckers and Italian traditions. Secondly I ally this with the conventions and
practice of viol playing and entabulation, and finally I investigate briefly
organ and instrumental transcriptions and how they relate to the idea of a
complex, but integrated, pitch system.2
In any one place, during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, it
seems that up to four pitch standardswould be used simultaneously which
were related to one another and were accessible by a process of
transposition. One thus would have had a common system of pitches
1Nicholas Mitchell: 'Choral and InstrumentalPitch in Church Music 1570-
1620.' GSJXLVIII pp. 13-32. A summaryof my ideas appearedin EarlyMusic
Today,Feb/March 1999 with an assessmentof their practicalusefulnessby Philip
Pickett, whose tirelessenthusiasmfor investigatingtheirpossibilitieshas provided
me with constantencouragement.Robin Bigwood: EarlyMusicReview,November
1999 This gives an appreciationof the basicideasof this articlefrom a sympathetic
viewpoint.
2 There is a
problemof nomenclaturewith regardto varyingpitches. The four
main pitchesI discusscan be referredto in the following ways: (1) R - Reference
pitch, a'-4, 348Hz, 'A flatpitch'. (2) R+2 (R + a major2nd), a'-2, 392 Hz, 'B flat
pitch'. (3) R+4, (R+a perfect fourth), a'+l, 466Hz, 'D flat pitch'. (4) R+5
(= R-4) (R + a perfectfifth), a'+3, 524 Hz, 'E flat pitch'. I have maintainedthe
nomen-claturethat I used in GSJ XLVIII for the sake of consistencyand cross
reference.a'+ = a semitone above a' = 440Hz. a'-4 = four semitonesor a major
thirdbelow a' = 440 Hz.

97
accessible to players and singers all over Europe, and, indeed, the Americas.
There is a great deal of evidence for mixed ensembles of all types playing
together, such that it is clear that pitch standards for the woodwind and
brass would have been compatible with strings and keyboards. For
example, the wedding in 1568 of Wilhelm V, son of Duke Albrecht, the
patron of Lassusin Munich, involved over a hundred players from different
courts throughout Europe. It would have been impossible for this to occur
without a commonly accepted pitch. There are everywhere references to
music making involving all types of instruments at one time. In this context
it is highly unlikely that there was a differentiation between the pitches of
strings and wind. As in the modern orchestra, the woodwind would have
given the pitch to the more easily tuned strings. Given the importance of
setting up the strings for a lute or viol, it is also highly unlikely that retuning
of stringed instruments up or down a tone was employed. The raising of the
pitch of a lute by only a semitone involves totally new strings. Viols are
more flexible, but they cannot be adjusted too much. It is thus necessary
that if wind instruments were exported, they brought with them a common
pitch standard to whatever country they came. This article is aimed at
establishing that correspondence and investigating its implications for
performances of music in the 16th century.
It is perhaps worth reiterating the methods that I have employed in
reaching the model that I arrived at in my earlier article. Over many years I
have sung and inspected a wide selection of the repertoire, both sacred and
secular. In doing so I have applied the knowledge that I have of the
instruments that were standardlyavailable and attempted to match them to
the music. Purely instrumental music of the sixteenth century is rare, and it
is generally agreed that vocal collections would have involved, at least on
occasion, instrumental performance. In addition to noting the music and its
ranges for instrumental performance, I also investigated the relative
tessituras of music in the commonest clef combinations, particularly the
standard low clef system - F4, C4, C3, C2/1, and the high clef system
F3/C4, C3, C2, G2.
The issue of pitch in the renaissance has been much clouded by a
tendency to assume that each location had its own individual parochial
pitch standard and that the apparent differences in pitch were due to local
variations. There is no evidence in the sixteenth century for local
manufacture catering for a specific and separate pitch standard. The
centralisation of brass and woodwind manufacture in Nuremberg and
Venice indicates the acceptance of an international standard. Of course this
did not apply in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when wide
variations in pitch standards were prevalent. A recent thesis by Bruce
Haynes3 on this subject, while being excellent as an account of the later
period, ignores the evidence of the export of instruments in the sixteenth
3 Bruce
Haynes: Pitch Standardsin the Baroqueand ClassicalPeriods.UMI
DissertationServices1996.

98
century and assumes wide local variations in that period. Although he
investigates the evidence ofcometts at length, astonishingly, he ignores the
recorders and brass instruments which, it seems to me, give the best and
most unambiguous evidence of pitch practice. He deals with the very real
differences in pitch that occur in the various countries of Europe in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and extrapolates that they had
persisted since the earlier period. The primacy of exported Venetian
instruments in the first half of the sixteenth century has to be accepted as the
source of pitch practice, rather than investigating individual traditions.
Another source of confusion is the desire to work too exclusively with
contemporary treatises,which I would argue to be secondary evidence, and
not put enough emphasis on the surviving music and instruments. Many
modern accounts of this subject start with a notoriously difficult chapter
from Praetorius, which seems to raise far more problems than it solves. He
seems on occasions to contradict himself within a few lines. Other
commentators suggest that the evidence of Praetorius on pitch is clear, but
it is perhaps worth quoting Haynes himself on this passage. He says of
Praetorius' distinction of CammerThonand ChorThon:
There areconfusingaspectsof Praetorius'usageof theseterms.By his own account
they were not typicalof his contemporaries.But whateverhis inconsistenciesin the
meaning of ChorThon,he reservedthe term CammerThon (althoughit had other
nameslike rechteThonand Cornettenthon)unambiguouslyforthe higherof thesetwo
levels.4
That is to say - Praetorius has three labels for CammerThonand sometimes
he uses the word ChorThonfor the same pitch. I do not find this easy, and it
seems to me sensible to sideline this evidence and look at more concrete
indications of pitch practice in the early 17th century. I accept that the
criticisms of Myers in GSJ are indeed relevant to the issue, and that my
analysis of Praetorius' comments on pitch do not hang together
satisfactorily.5My emphasis has to be on his plates and indications of range
at his chamber pitch, which, like Myers, I take to be about 460Hz. Many,
like Myers, will be unhappy at this cavalier attitude to the locusclassicusof
discussions on this topic. I can only defend myself by appealing to other
evidence which has a wide range of sources, while accepting that my
analysis of Praetorius is not yet coherent.
The main objection to the method that I have employed is that I have
used my experience as a singer to assessthe difference in vocal tessituraas an
indication of differing pitch standards.This is, of course, not new - Mendel
4ibid. p. 144
s Herbert W. Myers: GSJ LI pp. 259 - 267. This perceptive note reveals several
errors in my original article. It still, however, seems reluctant to accept the evidence
of correlating vocal tessiturasin various types of published music, on which I rely as
primary evidence over the sometimes ambiguous indications in contemporary
treatises. On p. 258 his analysis of recorder pitches shows that most recorders were
at a'+1, or a'-2 which fits into the tuttopuntosystem.

99
conducts a very similar process in investigating Bach Cantatas. In fact the
simultaneous experience of fifteen or so singers can give a more accurate
assessment than Mendel used when relying merely on an average of the top
and bottom notes in each voice part. When I invited a group of singers over
ten years ago to investigate the possible transpositions in Monteverdi's
Vespers of 1610, I was presented with a result which contradicted all the
current thinking on the subject. It took me several years to establish that
their analysiswas correct. Where these findings do not seem to conform to
contemporary treatises, one must realise that there is a possibility that one is
not reading them in the way that was intended. The music must stand as the
central and primary source in any investigation. There is a depressing
tendency in pitch articles for the actual music to be the last thing discussed.
References to 'viol music' or 'church music with instruments' without
specifying exactly which pieces are of no assistance to the practical
musician.

MEZZO PUNTO AND TUTTO PUNTO

The model I have proposed is that, deriving from two woodwind pitches
roughly a semitone above modern pitch (a'+1) and a tone above modern
pitch (a'+2) and investigating relative tessituras,one comes up with a set of
pitches at a'+2 and a'-3 for church music in Spain, Rome, Antwerp and
Munich, but a more complex but commoner system of four pitches at a'-4,
a'-2, a'+1 and a'+3 elsewhere. For various reasons, it appears that the
former system was called mezzo punto and the latter tuttopunto.From a trade
agreement forJacomo and Santo Bassano it is clear that cornetts were at
both pitches and the wording cornettialti si de mezo ponto comeetiam de tuto
ponto (high cornetts indeed at mezzo puntojust as also at tuttopunto)perhaps
suggests that tuttopunto was more common.6 In 1582 a letter sent by the
organ builder Morsolino7 resisting the lowering of the pitch of the
Cremona organ from mezzo punto to tutto punto is used by Haynes in
defending the idea that mezzo punto was the typical pitch of cornetts.
Morsolino says that mezzo punto is the commonest pitch of organs, used by
the best performers of his time. But he worked in Munich with Lassusand
would find no difficulty in employing mezzo punto for concerted music,
since Lassus appears to have used a'+2 for church music in Munich.
However Graziadio Antegnati contradicted him and regarded that the
lowering of the pitch would make the organ more useful for concerted
music. The original proposal came from Ingegneri, who would have
wished the more common secular pitch of a'+ 1 for the organ, rather than
the higher a'+2. Thus, although Morsolino is suggesting leaving the organ
at mezzo punto, he has special personal reasons for doing so. The use of the
word mezzo punto (half pitch) is explained by it being, at a'+2, half way
between the highest a'+3 choir pitch and the chamber pitch ofa'+l, and,

6Haynes,op. cit. pp. 58 -59.

7ibid.
pp. 59 - 61.

100
at a'-3, which was used in high clefs, halfway between the lower pitches of
a'-4 and a'-2. Thus, when Haynes says that mezzo punto is the highest
cornett pitch, he is correct, but the lower pitch (tuttopunto) of a'+l is the
more common. I shall confine myself, however, in this article to a
discussion of the fourfold tuttopuntosystem in that it is found in the majority
of woodwind instruments, especially recorders. Its very name, 'the
complete pitch', would suggest its central importance.
Roughly two thirds of surviving woodwinds and 78% of recorders fit in
with the tutto punto system. Only 13% of recorders are in mezzo punto,
perhaps accounting for the apparent church bias in music for mezzo punto.
The variations in recorder tuning noted by Herbert Myers in GSJ LI8
confirm the likelihood of the tuttopunto layout that I originally suggested.
30% of surviving recorders are at Praetorius' pitches at a'+l and the
percentage goes up to 65% if one includes instruments at a'+3. A further
13%appearto be ofPraetorius' sizes but at a'-2. 13%appearto be at modern
pitch, but if one accepts them as being at a'+2, or mezzo punto, they
conform to the standardsizes. So, for example, a Bassetin moderng is in fact
anf Bassetat a'+2.
Haynes' assessment leads him to a pitch ofa'+ 1, mezzo punto, commonly
used in cornetts, and a lower pitch of about a'+O as the lower cornett pitch
(tuttopunto). He identifies this pitch with the rarer, higher pitch of flutes,
while putting the lower pitch found on renaissance flutes a'- 1 as a reference
pitch which was adopted by O'Brien and Wraight for long scaled
harpsichords. Against this, one has to argue that the evidence for an a'+O
pitch for cornetts is very thin. Practising players have searched in vain for
such an instrument amongst European collections. Haynes does not use the
evidence of trombones that appear to have been at a'+ 1 or a'+2, or use the
information derived from renaissance recorders. The pitch of flutes is at
a'-l, but it is highly likely that from reasons of fingering, they would
regularly transpose up by a tone to bring them into line with the cornetts.
Thus the two renaissance flute pitches of a'-l and a'+O (surviving in
proportions of roughly 2:1) match the cornetts at a'+l and a'+2 (also
surviving in the same proportions). The a'-l flute pitch is a red herring,
because of regular transposition. It is certainly no evidence for Praetorius'
ChorThon, a tone lower than a'+l Cammer Thon, since flutes were not
church music instruments. If we look at organs in Germany of the
seventeenth century that would have been played with cornetts and other
survivors of the renaissance wind band, we find pitches at a'+l and a'+2
also in the similar proportions. Of 29 surviving Schnitger organs built
between 1673 and 1721 19 average a'+l and 9 a'+2 with one at a'- . One
notes the same 2:1 proportions that apply from the renaissance. Given the
use of cornetts in Germany during this period this would suggest that a'+l
and a'+2 were the standardcornett pitches, and a'+Obecame obsolete, if it
ever existed in the 16th century.9 For these reasons, the advertised Bassano

8 p. cit.
9Haynesp. 199.

101
mezzo punto cometts would have been at a'+2 and the tuttopunto ones at
a'+1.

BASSANO INSTRUMENTS
The use of this pitch system by the Bassano family reveals that England, as
the probable source of most Bassano instruments, far from being a
backwater, exported instruments all over Europe to a common standard
pitch. It seems that from Norwich to Salamanca instruments made in the
city of London were played from before 1559 to the 1630s. The Bassanos
were close to Ganassi and are possibly illustrated on the frontispiece to La
Fontegara(1535). Maggie Lyndon Jones' article in GSJ LII reveals the
importance of this family in European music. Although her conclusions are
hypothetical, they strongly support the idea of a unified pitch system. The
!! sign on these instruments could be otherwise interpreted, but it is highly
likely that they are Bassano instruments. Her article shows how the
Bassanos, under licence, would export English instruments to Venice and
beyond. It is thus entirely probable that the pitch standard identifiable in
woodwind instruments was used throughout Europe, including England.
Indeed, some of the instruments illustrated in Praetorius' SyntagmaMusicum
were probably made in England. His concern over English pitch was
perhaps derived from a close knowledge of the Bassanos' instruments. He
knew Bassanelli and describes them. The differences in pitch he notes
between the English and elsewhere could have been very small, so that
there was no incompatibility between them and Venetian instruments."?

ORGAN PITCHES
Thus essentially the typical woodwind pitch was a'+l, and often organ
pitches were at a'+3 and a'-4 as well as at a'+1. The a'-2 pitch is found in
wind instruments, but is also achievable by transposition, as is a'-4. These
two low pitches are those indicated by alla quarta bassa and ad quartam
inferioremfor a'-2 and alla quintaor ad quintaminferiorem for a'-4 in organ and
continuo parts.
I have been ambitious in trying to cut the Gordian knot of pitch
variations by suggesting this solution. If one identifies the lowest pitch with
the 10' C, common not only on English organs but also elsewhere in
Europe, one finds that the transposing system was perhaps found all over
Europe. A ten foot speaking length open pipe gives an Abor a'-4. As early
as 1400 an organ of this disposition was installed in Notre Dame in Paris.'1
Schlick talks of an 80" low pipe which is a fifth higher than the norm, which
would thus be 120" or 10'. Bermudo's (1555) 14 palm lowest pipe also

0
Maggie Lyndon-Jones:'A Checklist of Woodwind Instrumentsmarked!!',
GSJLIIpp. 243-280.
1 CraigWright:MusicandCeremony atNotreDameofParis500-1500. CUP 1989,
p. 147. The had
instrument a longestpipe of 6 metres.

102
 seemsto be to a ten foot standard.12That is not to saythatBermudogives
otherspecifications,the fourpitchesat tuttopuntoandothersat mezzopunto
could explain the other lengths that he gives. The contractfor an organ
builtby BenedettoAntegnatifor S. Vittorein Varesein 1566 specifiesthat
fistula magnasit et essedebeatlongitudinis pedumundecimet registrum pedum
decem.13(The greatpipe may be and ought to be eleven feet in length and
the registeroften feet.) This would imply a speakinglength of the longest
pipe of ten feet. ContraMyers one has to accept this as being often used
outsideEnglandif not asthe standard.Althoughmanyorgansmaynot have
been builtto the ten foot standard,it is probablethatone of the mezzopunto
or tuttopuntopitches would have been used, merely from the point of
practicality.There is alsoa dangerin assumingthatdifferentlocal 'feet'are
being referredto ratherthanan internationalstandard.We see thatSchlick,
farfrom using his own local type of foot, uses a measurementclose to an
Englishone. De Caus,writingin Heidelberg,does not use the local unit of
measurement(a very short foot), but his 1X 'feet' is equivalentto 18k
inches, also very close to the Englishstandard.One should not seek local
variationsin this respectunnecessarily.

RUCKERS PITCH
Since the ten foot pipe would soundwell below modernpitch, close to an
A"',or a'-4, I seekto identifythisasthe referenceor commonbasicpitchfor
most 16th-century keyboards.In GS]XLVIIIan unfortunatemisprintled to
two conflictingsentencesbeing left in the text.14I ultimatelyintendedto
say that the uppermanualof the typicalRuckers double harpsichordis at
this low pitch (a'-4), with the lower sounding a fourth below or a fifth
higherat a'+3.
Grant O'Brien's exhaustivestudy of the Ruckers traditioncould be
interpretedto supportthis theory.'5Firstlyhe establishesthat over many
years the Ruckers family produced standard6 voet harpsichordsand
virginalswith a scalingofc"= 355mm. 50 out of 52 harpsichords and26 out
of 38 virginalswere at thisscaling.The Edinburgh1638bIoannesRuckers
double transposingharpsichordis absolutelytypical of the genre. This
355mm scaleis common both to Ruckersand othermakersof the period,
and is identified as a reference pitch by O'Brien. It representsan
internationalcommon standardpitch. I intendedto suggestthatthisscaling
would leadto a pitch of a'-4 on the basisthata brassscaledcopy of a Ridolfi
12 Alexander Ellis and ArthurMendel:
J. Studiesin theHistoryof MusicalPitch.
Amsterdam,FritsKnufBuren 1968. pp. 92-103, 158-160.
13 Gli
Antegnati:editedby OscarMischiati.Bologna 1995 p. 117. Myersop. cit.
p. 265.
4 Mitchell op. cit. p. 24 para.4, The sentence 'This would mean that ... a'-2 for
the lower' shouldbe deleted.
15 GrantO'Brien: Ruckers a harpsichordandvirginalbuildingtradition.
Cambridge:
CUP 1990. esp. Ch. 3 & 4, pp. 292-3. The consistencyof scalingin the Ruckers
traditionpointsclearlyto an internationalcommon standardbetween 1580 - 1630.

103
harpsichord with c" = 255mm sounds at a'-1 (415 Hz). For this reason a
scale of 355mm even in iron is likely to be well below the a' = 415Hz which
is thought by both Grant O'Brien and Denzil Wraight to be the pitch of
instruments with a c" = 355mm scaling. Grant O'Brien points out that
Taskin, with a longer scale of c" = 364 at the end of the 18th century,
worked to a pitch of 409Hz indicated by a surviving tuning fork. Thus
Ruckers instruments, according to O'Brien, with a shorter scale should
sound higher, not lower than Taskin, that is, at about 415Hz. It is,
however, not clear that Taskin's 364mm scale was intended for the 409Hz
of his tuning fork, since Taskin also used a shorter scale ofc.344mm.'6 If the
shorter scale were at 409Hz it is likely that Taskin's long scale was intended
for something like the French Opera pitch of c.392Hz. It is therefore not
absolutely clear that Ruckers' reference pitch was as high as 415Hz even on
this argument alone.
There are, however, some things that might support a much lower
reference pitch or R as O'Brien puts it for 6 voetinstruments. Firstly there
is the surprising coincidence that the pitch relationships that I suggested in
GSJXLVIII of three higher pitches a tone, a fourth and a fifth above the
lowest pitch correspond exactly with the scalings of the surviving shorter
scaled Ruckers instruments. O'Brien gives the four basic pitches as being R
(reference pitch), R + 2 (i.e. R plus a major second, R + 4 (R plus a perfect
fourth) and R + 5 (R plus a fifth). These are the 6 voet, 5 voet, 4? voetand 4
voet instruments. The exact algnment of a'-4, a'-2, a'+1 and a'+3 with
these relative pitches is too tempting to resist or ignore. Although O'Brien
notes the existence of the pitches higher than the reference pitch, he has no
real usage for them to be found in the music of the time, as I do. If one
adopts his a'- as standard, one arrives at other pitches of a'+ 1, a'+4 and
a'+6 as in regular use. How these would be of use to musicians of the time
is not explained by O'Brien. This relationship of pitches, however, is
specified by Banchieri in Conclusioninel suono del organoof 1608.17

RAVALEMENT
The main problem for this analysis lies in the suggestion that harpsichords
in the eighteenth century with roughly the same scaling as Ruckers
instruments played over a tone higher than in their seventeenth-century
state. One has to consider what happened to these instruments when they
were altered or en ravalement. This process involved extending the
keyboards at either end to expand the compass, and (in the case of
transposing doubles) an alignment of the two keyboards to play at the same
pitch, as opposed to their original state with the lower keyboard playing at
a fourth below the upper keyboard.

6BernardBrauchli:The 1782 TaskinHarpsichord,Colares,Portugal.GSJLIII

p. 44.
7 Mitchell op. cit. p. 25.

104
 Dr. O'Brien has pointed out that some ravalementsinvolved the
shortening of scales by a semitone or more. For example the 1644a AR has
a scaling in its 18C state a semitone shorter than it had been originally18.The
child virginal 1634 AR had its pitch effectively raised by a major third.19
This could be achieved either by changing the disposition and/or altering
the position of the nut. O'Brien points out that Van Blankenburg, writing
on the clavicimbel (i.e. harpsichords and virginals) in 1739, says that the
addition of an 8' stop instead of a 4' necessitates shifting of the keyboard to
the treble by a semitone to offset the overlong scaling of the new 8' strings.20
The context of this statement implies excessive tension and pressure on the
bridge of the instrument. Even given the adjustment allowed by Van
Blankenburg, 1644a AR is still raised by a semitone. The higher tensions of
iron strung instruments in Van Blankenburg's time is also perhaps indicated
by the fact that he makes a wider difference between copper and iron strings
than was likely earlier. For him a fourteen duimenc is equivalent to an eleven
duimenstring in copper, giving a proportional difference of 1.273 or more
than a major third, compared to the Ruckers ratio of 1.226 which gives a
difference between brass and iron of about a minor third. Another feature
of ravalementwas that there was a considerable amount of extra barring
added to the soundboard to allow for the extra tension in the strings. This
would imply that the critical stress applied to harpsichord strings in the
eighteenth century was much greater than a hundred and fifty years earlier.
Ergo, for the same scale, a higher pitch was intended.
There are other hints apart from changes in scaling that harpsichords en
ravalementwere played at a higher pitch than in their sixteenth - and
seventeenth-century state. O'Brien suggests, albeit tentatively, that from
the very few surviving examples of seventeenth-century stringing, that
their gauges were considerably heavier than a hundred years later. He
assesses the c"' would have been 0.31mm originally on a Ruckers,
compared with, typically, only 0.21mm on an eighteenth-century English
or French instrument. Although there were three registers in a typical
eighteenth-century instrument as opposed to two in the seventeenth
century, the original gauge would still have to be at a much higher tension
to be at the same pitch. An increase in diameter of this magnitude would
lead to an increase in tension by 2.3 times string for string. The Ruckers
harpsichord, having only two strings per note, would still have to bear 50%
greater tension than the three strings of its eighteenth-cetury ravalestate if it
were at the same pitch. This is highly unlikely.
The shape of Ruckers harpsichords allowed a ravalementto take place as
well as the raising of pitch. Being iron scaled, and therefore having space in
the treble, they could accept extra keys at the top of the keyboard without
the string lengths being too short. Their Flemish construction, being

18O'Brienop. cit. p. 268

9ibid. p. 264.
2 ibid. 209, 297f.
p.

105
stouter than the Italian equivalent, could take the pressure of higher string
tensions. Also, most importantly, their extensive use of brass strings in the
bass allowed a raising of pitch by replacing them with iron when necessary.
The short scale of C (c.1400-1500mm) allowed a raising of pitch which
could only be achieved in Italian instruments by a wholesale shortening of
the scale. The same note C on the 1531 Trasuntino in London is 1873mm.
with a similar c"scaling as the Ruckers (359mm).
The tuning of the upper manual of a Ruckers double harpsichord was
thus with its long scale of 356mm probably at a reference pitch of perhaps
about 348Hz or a'-4. The lower manual with a c" at 238mm was a fifth
higher at 524Hz or a'+3. It is only with a pitch as low as this that the
evidence of written sources and the woodwind evidence can be integrated.

PRAETORIUS' KEYBOARD ILLUSTRATIONS

In his plate VI Praetorius identifies an Italian harpsichord as being a fourth
below ChorThon.21This would put it at the same pitch as Ruckers reference
pitch (348Hz), just as the 1531 Trasuntino, with the same c" scale as the
Ruckers (but longer bass strings), is also at reference pitch. As regards the
keyboards on plates XIV and XV of Praetorius, Philip Pickett has noticed
something new. On XIV there is an Italian polygonal spinet and beneath it,
a Flemish virginals. They are not at the same pitch. The Italian has a much
longer scale, probably the common reference pitch, but the Flemish has
much shorter strings and so it is labelled a Recht ChorThon instrument,
which is a fourth above the Italian. The same phenomenon is to be seen in
the clavichords on plate XV. No. 2 is a much larger Italienischemensur
instrument, while no.3 is a Gemein Clavichord.The longer scale of no. 2 is
compatible with a'-4, while no. 3 is at a'+ 1. These illustrationspictured side
by side in Praetorius show the transitional nature of the period that he was
working in. During the early years of the 17th century a common system
was developing. Organs were ceasing to be transposing instruments, and
harpsichordswere starting to be altered. Italian instruments were becoming
short scaled or having keyboard layouts changed. The chiavetti system
which required automatic transposition was becoming obsolete, and the
introduction of music with sharp key signatures was also becoming more
prevalent. All these phenomena are linked to the use of a common higher
pitch for all instruments for which Praetorius is a keen advocate.
O'Brien compares Ruckers scales with those of Taskin to establish pitch,
but it is equally valid to compare the scales of other eighteenth-century
makers. For example the Silbermann in Berlin has a scale of 328mm. The
Berlin Kirckman, at 341mm is also shorter than the Ruckers scale. It is rare
to find an eighteenth-century scale as long as the Ruckers reference scale of
356mm. More significant is the examination of the bottom notes en

21Praetorius: SyntagmaMusicumTr. David Crookes. Clarendon Press 1986, Plate

VI no.1. I treatthis harpsichordas a typicalreferencepitch instrument,unlike the
much rarersub-quarttype.

106
ravalement.The typical change was from a C/E bass note to a GG/BB in a
petit ravalement.This would mean that the bass strings, being in brassas they
were originally, would be extremely slack compared to their original
format if the same pitch were kept. Where the material is known to be brass
before and after ravalement,as in the bass strings, we see that the ravalement
process implies a radical rise in pitch. This rise is even more clearly
illustrated in the case of Italian instruments.

ITALIAN INSTRUMENTS
The scaling of Italian harpsichordsreveals a radicalchange in pitch between
the sixteenth century and the eighteenth century. Out of 160 Italian
instruments that can be dated before 1620, 116 (72.5%) are long scaled.
That is, their c"scale is 300mm or longer. If one compares this with Italian
instruments built between 1650 and 1800, of 115 examples only 20 (17.4%)
are long scaled.22 There was little or no change in the manner of
construction of Italian harpsichords, unlike the ravalementof the Ruckers
harpsichords. Ceterisparibusthis would imply a substantialrise in pitch. The
long scaled Italian harpsichords like the 1531 Trasuntino have a much
longer scale for the lowest bass notes than the Ruckers harpsichords.
How, therefore, can this be explained? The traditional answer is to say
that short scales were for harpsichordsstrung in brass.But this is not enough
to explain the wholesale abandonment of long scales for Italian
harpsichords in the eighteenth century. Why could they not continue with
the scaling of the sixteenth century, if, as both O'Brien and Denzil Wraight
suggest, the pitch remained more or less constant through this period at a'
= 415Hz?23 Furthermore, it is hard to understand the function of the 5, 4;
and 4 voet instruments if a pitch of 415Hz is suggested for the 6 voet
reference pitch.
There is a feature of Italian instruments that differs from the Ruckers
tradition. The long scaled Italian instruments of the renaissance appear to
centre on two pitches a tone apart at roughly c" = 310mm and 340+mm.
Since they were all single manual instruments, and not transposerslike the
Ruckers, they could be pitched at a'-4 for 340mm and a'-2 for 310mm. All
the tuttopuntotunings are at a fourth or a fifth from these tunings, so it is no
surprise to find an almost exclusive emphasis on these transpositions in the
treatises. With the Ruckers keyboards at a'-4 and a'+3 the transpositions
were different, but the same four pitches could be accessed.

STRING TUNINGS
The low reference pitch as a basis for keyboards is also reflected in the
traditions of the viol consort and lutes. If one accepts, as I have argued,

22Denzil Wraight:'TheStringing
ofItalianKeyboard
Instrumentsc.1500-1650.' Ann
Arbor UMI 1999, pp. 130-144. I doubled the scale of the octave instrumentsto
increasethe size of sample.
23ibid.
pp. 326-333.

107
that Praetorius' CammerThonwas a'+1 and, more tendentiously, that his
ChorThon was a tone higher at a'+3, the tunings of viols and lutes
correspond with this system. The basic Chorlauteis in G at a'+1, the others
in the consort are a tone above (the descant lute in A - a'+3) or a minor third
below (the tenor lute in E - a'-2) or a fourth below (the bass lute in D - a'-
4).24These tunings reflect the basic tuttopuntolayout. I can find no stringed
instrument in Praetorius that could play at a tone lower than a'+1. For
example the Orpharion is tuned in G and A, but not in F. The F tuning that
would be essential if these instruments were to play at a Choir pitch a tone
lower than a'+1 are notably absent from Praetorius' lists of tunings. The
lutes are clearly designed to fit a fourfold pitch system in alignment with the
keyboards. The theory of a ChorThon a tone lower than Praetorius'
CammerThon finds no support in the tunings of any of his stringed
instruments.25
Ephraim Segerman in GSJXLVIII (pp. 33-45) has reminded us of the
discrepancy between the modern viol consort and the evidence of
surviving instruments and indications in contemporary sources such as
Praetorius, Simpson and Talbot. He has pointed out that they are all much
larger than their modern counterparts. Whereas Segerman confines himself
to English instruments, the same phenomenon is to be seen in Italian viols
of the sixteenth century. The typical consort in contemporary illustrations
seems to have consisted (in modern terms) of three basses and a tenor,
despite the existence of indications of a high tuning for the consort going
back to Ganassi (1542) and Lanfranco (1533). The reason for this anomaly
is that the high tunings common in the 16thcentury are simply expressed at
the low pitch of either a'-2 or a'-4.
Praetorius' viol consort consists of a Cantus instrument with its top string
an a', a TENOR/ALT in d' and a BASS ing. Their lowest notes would be
two octaves below these notes. One should, however, consider their top
notes, given that each of his viols has seven frets. This would bring the
Cantus part up to e", the Tenor and Alto partsto a' and the Bass to d'. There
is thus an exact correlation between the highest notes of the standardwind
consort and the viol consort at Praetorius' chamber/choir pitch, since the
normal renaissance treble recorder ing' goes up to e"',with the tenor/alt in
c' reaching a"' and bass infreaching d". Thus Praetorius' viol consort is
exactly in alignment with the woodwind, but at a pitch apparently a fourth
lower than the normal viol consort. I have shown that this layout accords
exactly with the madrigal and chanson repertoire in low clefs that is the
norm for many composers of the 16th century. These limited ranges are
specified for the recorder consort as early as 1511 in Virdung's fingering
charts for the Bassus, Tenor and Discant recorders. The existence of the
Ganassi type recorder with its range of over two octaves shows that the

24 Praetorius tr. Crookes p. 58.

25Mitchellop. cit. pp. 25-27. I arguethe sameconclusionashere on the basisof
the woodwind evidence andthe comparisonof churchandsecularmusic.

108
narrow limits of the recorder consort were deliberate, obviously intending
to match the human voice.
The size of Praetorius' viols bears this out, since the string length of the
Treble or Discant viol is a little over 16 inches or a little longer than his
viola. The Tenor, with a string length of 22 inches is larger than its modern
equivalent, but its pitch ofd' at a'+ 1 is appropriatefor its size. The Klein Bass
is, at 29 inches, substantially larger than a modem consort bass viol. This
large size of bass viol is indicated both by Talbot and Simpson, (1659) as
well as Mersenne, (1636) and is represented by several surviving examples.
According to Segerman there seems to have been widespread agreement at
the time on these sizes of viols. Given the international woodwind stan-
dards that were apparent, this comes as no surprise. But how does this
system fit into contemporary pitch practice?
The study of string lengths is not an exact science, but it seems that
Praetorius expected viols to be played on the upper strings up to and not
necessarily much beyond their top frets at a woodwind pitch of a'+ 1. Of
course, the two and a half octave range of the Tenor would allow it to play
most vocal music for the lowest three parts, since it goes down to D. The
Klein Basswould not normally be needed for the four part vocal repertoire.
Praetorius, however, points to a different pitch tradition in England:
When the English are playing viols on theirown (my italics) they make each
instrumentsometimesa 4th, sometimesa 5th lower. They imagine(my italics)the
bottom stringsof the smallbass,tenor/alto and cantussizesD, A, and e, although,
asthe abovetablewill show, they arereallya 5th lower - bassG', tenor/alto D, and
cantusA (thinkingin chamberpitch).A consortthustunedsoundsmuch morerich
and majesticthanone tuned to the usualpitches.26
Praetorius seems to be saying that when viols are not following a vocal
line, but simply in consort on their own, they play a fourth or fifth lower
than in his own tuning. When not on their own, they would follow a
different practice, such as his low tuning (at high pitch). He is expressly
saying in the second sentence that he is dealing with the same types of
instruments, and not until the last sentence does he imply that any re-tuning
is required. This suggests that he is talking of transposition rather than re-
tuning. Of course if one transposes music down a fourth or fifth, it will
sound more rich and majestic. Hence Praetorius is suggesting a pitch
standarda fourth or fifth below his for English viol players. As a result they
imagine their instruments, which are the same size, as being pitched a
fourth or fifth higher. The ambiguity of a 4th or 5th perhaps refers to the
highest a'+3 pitch which, being a tone higher than Praetorius' a'+1 is
indeed a fifth higher than the lowest a'-4 which I take as standardfor viols.

VIOL TUNINGS BEFORE PRAETORIUS

The issue of high and low tunings for the viol consort is not just found in
Praetorius. There are examples of the same practice in Italy and Germany

26 Crookes
p. 52-53.

109
by 1550. An Italian manuscript ofc.1536 gives two high tunings with the
treble in d", the tenor in a' and the bass in e', and the same relationships but
a tone lower for use with flat key signatures.27The two tunings suggest that
a flat in the key signature implies an upward transposition of a tone. I have
already argued that flat signatures can cause problems in a wind band,
especially shawms.28 Praetorius says that a flat signature can imply a
downward transposition of a fourth rather than a fifth. I take this to imply a
pitch of a'-2 rather than a'-4. The viol consort, starting from a'-4, moves
into a'-2 in flat keys, a fourth lower than the high a'+3. Early viol tutors in
Germany, such as a Munich manuscript of 1523 give two tunings: a low a'-
d'-a and a high d"-g'-d'.29Against the high tuning is an indication that it is
used to cope with parts that go too high; 'darnachauffdie quarttherabso der
discanttuszu hochgelt' (A fourth lower as the discant goes too high.). There
is no suggestion of different instruments, but just instructions for
entabulation or direct reading from the part book. The conclusion is that
the higher tuning implies a lower pitch. The higher the tuning, the lower
the pitch. A d"-a'-d'tuning could be taken to imply a'-4; a c"-g'-c'is at a'-2,
an a'-e'-a at a'+1 and a g'-d'-g at a'+3. Standardization need not however
have been quite so rigid.
Of course there are variations in the relationship between the individual
instruments, but the principle is clear that anyone wishing to entabulate a
piece for viols would assume the different tunings in order to lay out the
tablature to fit a common limited number of types of instrument. The
variant tunings indicate transpositions into keys that do not go above the
frets on the viol. As Gerle says in Musica Teusch (1532), 'Wan du eingesang
in die Tabulatursetzen wolst/und erging so hoch/ das du nit so viel bundauffder
Geygen hettest'(When you wish to transcribe a melody into the tabulature
and it goes so high that you do not have enough frets on the viol), he is
explaining the high d"-g'-d' and indicating a downward transposition of
vocal music in high clefs.30

WOODWIND AND VIOL RANGES

Ganassi in his Regola Rubertina (1542/3) mainly uses high tunings, but in
his fourth rule he uses the low tuning, apparently for a viol with only five
strings, as opposed to the standard six.31 If, however, one compares the
fourth rule with tablaturesfor four- and three-string viols, it is clear that the
fourth rule is for a six string instrument as for the first three rules, since the
tabulature has six ruled lines for the strings, whereas the four- and three-

27lanWoodfield:TheEarlyHistoryoftheViol.Cambridge:CUP 1984.pp. 140-141.

28Mitchell,op. cit. p. 22.
29Woodfieldop. cit. pp. 108-109.
30ibid.p. 109.
31
Sylvestro Ganassi : Regola Rubertina;First and Secondpart, Venice 1542/3, tr.
Daphne and Stephen Silvester.Berlin- LichterfeldeRobert Lienau 1977. pp. 32-
37, 102-107. Woodfield pp. 140-147.

110
 string viols only have four and three lines in their tabulature.The low
fourthtuninga'-d'-ais the 'Mododisonarunaquarta piu alta'i.e. to transpose
the musica fourthhigherthanhis othertunings.Ganassialsomakesit clear
thatthissystemisjust as common in Italyasthe high tuning. 'E percheilpiu
disonatori si sonale violeunaquartapiu altadelaprimaregolanostra: pero'voglio
insegnarti il dittomodo'.(And since most playersplay viols a fourthhigher
than in our first rule of tuning, I would like to show you this method.)
What one notices aboutthis tuningis thatit is for a more restrictedrange
than the high consorttunings.For this reasonthe bassdoes not go below
the thirdfretof the Bordunor secondlowest string,the Tenor/Alt andthe
Sopranodo not go below the open stringof the Tenor, or third string.
These restrictedrangesareidenticalto the vocalrangesof low clefmadrigals
and the chansonrepertoirejust as is the standardwoodwind consort and
Virdung'srecorderranges.The Bassis from F-d', the Tenor/Alt is fromc-
a' and the Sopranois fromg-e".Ganassiclearlydoes not envisagethis high
pitch to be used for any wider rangeof music. The correlationwhich we
found between Praetorius'viols and wind is evident here nearly eighty
years earlier.This is furtherconfirmedby the rules for four- and three-
stringviols,which againarein a low tuninga'-d'-gbut haveexactlythe same
limitedrangesasin the fourthruleandthe woodwind consort.In orderto
achievethis standardrangethe three stringviol hasto be strungin fifthsas
opposedto the normalfourths.We see thatthe functionof thissystemwas
to playfourpartvocal musicsuch aswas publishedin increasingquantities
fromthe 1520sonwards.
Praetorius'low tuning is there merely to bring his viols into alignment
with commonwoodwind practice.Thisis typicalof Europeasa whole, and
the earlyviol tutorsshow clearlythat the viol consort must have played
music well below modernpitch if it readmusic thatwent higherthanthe
top of the trebleclef. Ganassipoints out thatthe low tuningis for different
clef positions.Thus it is reasonableto assumethatthe low tuningswere for
musicin low clefs (C1/2, C3, C4, F4) while the high tuningsarefor music
in high clefs (G2, C2, C3, C4/F3), and the resultantpitcheswould be the
sameasthe woodwind andkeyboardpitchesthatI havesuggested.A skilled
playerwho could readmensuralnotationwould easilybe ableto transpose
at sight, but he might be more used to the higher tuning system,which
explainswhy some vocal music is transcribeda fourth up from the vocal
pitchbut without words,presumablyfor the viols to accompanyor replace
singers.The ruleslaidout by Ganassiappearto be morelike fingeringcharts
for the viol, since he gives the tablatureside by sidewith staffnotation.
One featureof Praetorius'viol consortthathasattractednotice is the fact
thatthe lowest note of his KleinBassgoes below anyknown musicfor viol
consort.Standardlythe lowest note is C, whereasthe KleinBassgoes down
to C'. This canbe explainedif one assumesthatviol consortmusicwas not
writtenin Praetorius'standarda'+1, but at the low a'-4pitch. If one looks,
for example, at some of the most elaboratemusic for viol consort,John
Jenkins'seventeenfive partFantasies,one cansee thatJenkinshada consort

111
of exactly Praetorius' dimensions and tunings in mind.32 The range of the
bass part is C -f', the tenor parts is G - e;"and the treble parts is b' - bk".If
positions above the eighth or ninth fret are to be avoided, a downward
transposition of a fourth would allow these extreme ranges to be played on
a consort with Praetorius' tuning with a Bass with G', a Tenor with D and
a Treble with A as the bottom note going up to the eighth fret for their top
notes. Hence this music should be played at a'-4 a major third below
modern pitch. The organ transcription of this music, partly inJenkins' own
hand, is written at the same pitch. A 10' C organ would sound at this pitch
or a low pitched harpsichord such as the upper manual ofa Ruckers double.
The viol consort could thus have performed at the reference pitch which
was common to keyboards all over Europe.

INSTRUMENTAL TRANSCRIPTIONS OF WORKS BY BYRD

Instrumental transcriptions of music of this period reveals the web of inter-
relating pitches used. If one takes the English anthems of William Byrd, one
can see a constant tessitura employed in the voice partswhich are usually in
the conventional low clef configuration of C1/2, C3, C4, and F4 for the
Cantus, Alto, Tenor and Bass parts. A typical example is 'Arise, O Lord', set
for SAATB with the following vocal ranges: S, c#- d";A, d - g'; T, B - d'; B,
F - a. There seems to be no difference in tessitura in this type of music if
there is a flat in the key signature. This corresponds with the tessitura of all
the voice parts in much church music of the period published in Italy. I
have argued that from the woodwind perspective, it is likely that such
music would have been performed at a'+3. There is a wealth of manuscript
sources for this piece: organ books, textless instrumental versions and lute
transcriptions. Whereas the vocal parts are in D minor and several of the
surviving organ parts are in the same key, there is one in A minor, a fifth
higher. This source is Christ Church MS. 1001, an organ book compiled in
the early 1640s, as a companion book to Barnard's First Book of Selected
ChurchMusic, 1641, but transcribed a fifth higher than the vocal parts. This
pattern of organ books either at the vocal pitch or a fifth above is repeated
throughout English anthems of this period. If the vocal pitch is at a'+3, it
follows that the organ pitch of MS. 1001 would be a'-4. The clef system of
organ books is variable, and it is often hard to distinguish whether it is for
performance in a high or low pitch without a comparison being made with
the vocal parts.
An indication that the vocal parts should be performed at a high pitch is
shown by three separate entablatures of the lower four parts of this anthem
in the Paston Lute Books ofc. 1600. Two raise it by a tone and one raisesthe
pitch by a minor third. Assuming a normal G lute would be employed, this
would indicate a pitch at least a tone higher than Praetorius' chamber pitch.
There exist textless manuscripts of this piece both at the vocal pitch in low

Consort
32JohnJenkins, Musicin FiveParts.ed. RichardNicholson. London,The
Viola da GambaSociety of GreatBritain.FaberMusicLtd.1971

112
clefs and also a fourth higher, set in high clefs. This could be taken to be
evidence that it should be merely performed at a'+l, employing a'-4 viols
for the high clef parts and a'+l woodwind for the low clef parts. However,
the flat key signature which is found in the transcriptions is often taken in
viol tutors to indicate a further upward transposition. The third scale of the
first tuning in Ganassi requires an upward transposition for a two flat key
signature.33Only one flat is sufficient to indicate such a transposition for the
woodwind. It is therefore possible that the upward transposition of a fourth
of this anthem would actually imply that of a fifth. Another alternative is to
suggest that there were viols set at a'-2 as well as the normal a'-4.
Instrumental players seem to have been reluctant to accept key signatures in
sharps, and to prefer the process of transposition. If one looks at the part
books of the opening bars of Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610, the opening
Toccata in D major has all its sharps written into the parts as accidentals,
rather than indicated more simply by a key signature. These transcriptions
could be merely for instrumental performance and the lute transcriptions
simply for a singer of an unusually high voice, but it is perhaps more likely
that they were done in order to perform a combined performance with
instruments and voices.
Byrd's Latin motets of the Gradualia I (1605) do not work to the same
tessitura as his English anthems. The voice ranges are wider, particularlyin
the middle parts, perhaps suggesting performance by solo voices with
instrumental accompaniment. The nature of Catholic worship was a much
more private affairat this time, and indeed, it is quite possible that women's
voices were used in a quasi-madrigalian context for this music. One can,
however, detect in the full four part motets in low clefs that the written
tessitura is a whole tone higher than his English music. Clearly Byrd is
envisaging a chamber performance at the lower pitch typical of madrigals,
i.e. a'+l as opposed to a'+3. This is borne out by examining the voice
ranges. In 'Alma Redemptoris Mater' the ranges are; S, (Cl) g - e";A, (C3)
d - c";T, (C 4) B -g'; B, (F4) G - c'. Instrumental parts for this motet include
one Paston set of part books at vocal pitch and another set up a fourth. This
latter set would suit viols at a'-4, while the whole should be performed at
a'+l. One should also note that where there are lute transcriptions of the
Gradualia they are at the vocal pitch and not transposed up a tone as in the
English anthems. This again would suggest that the English anthems should
be performed a tone higher than the Gradualia, i.e. at a'+3.

CONCLUSION
The model of a pitch system based on four related pitches is thus confirmed.
The Ruckers tradition, with its four related pitches: R, R+2, R+4 and
R+5, that is, a basic pitch with three others a tone, a fourth and a fifth above
it, discovered by Grant O'Brien, can be assimilated if one accepts that the
original reference pitch was a low a'-4. To identify this pitch as the 10'

33Ganassiop. cit. pp. 23, 24, 26. Woodfieldp. 141.

113
standard which was common not only in England but also throughout
Europe makes much sense of the evidence of organ books. The variation of
viol tunings and the large size of surviving instruments can also be
conveniently explained if they also worked to a low a'-4 pitch when in
consort. The use of this low pitch seems to have a long history. The players
of the bassedancein the 15th century with shawms and sackbuts treated their
G bombards as C instruments and the D treble shawm as a G instrument.
This would result in an a'-4 pitch for the written music.34If one adopts this
principle in much mediaeval music one arrivesat very singable pitches. The
lowest note of Praetorius' Klein Bass viol, being a G', which is below the
consort repertoire, becomes a C at a'-4, the lowest note of almost all
keyboards and consort music at the time. Praetorius' lowest bass sackbut
appearsto be set a sixth lower than the normal tenor sackbut35.This would
be of no particularuse except that its bottom note G' is the same as that of
the bass viol and a 10' church organ. It thus could double these low notes.
This integrated pitch system has enormous practical advantages. There
are no problems of temperament for the keyboards. Woodwind, strings and
brass can play together with no obvious awkwardness of keys and singers
need not be taxed by uncomfortable ranges. Over the last three years I have
been discussing these issues with Philip Pickett and he has found the system
to be highly desirable for performances with the 'New London Consort'
and 'The Musicians of the Globe'. He has had two keyboards built to the
a'-4 specification. One is a copy of the Queen Elizabeth's Virginals in the
Victoria and Albert Museum and one is a copy of the 1531 Trasuntino in
the Royal College of Music by Joel Katzman. This latter instrument with
one 8' and one 4' stop is a revelation. Its c"scale is 359mm and it is strung in
iron. The sound is lute - like and the 4' blends well with the 8' as well as
being a wonderful solo stop. The clarity of these instruments for
contrapuntal music shows how the style of harpsichord sound must have
changed between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. The wide range
of the keyboard C/E - f"' is tremendously useful, allowing upwards
transposition not only of a fourth, but a whole octave for much of the
repertoire without loss of quality. Although it is strung perhaps three to four
semitones below breaking point, there are none of the problems associated
with over-slack strings. If this is indeed the pitch that was originally
intended, it is the first instrument of its kind to be at its original pitch and
disposition in the modern era. As the New London Consort introduces
other instruments at these pitches their advantages and sonorities become
apparent. The viol in d at a'+ is the equivalent ofPraetorius' Tenor/Alt

34 and theirHistory,3rd Edn. London,

Anthony Baines: WoodwindInstruments
1967, Faber.p. 233.
35 Herbert W.
Myers op. cit. p. 264 rightly questions my interpretationof
Praetorius'sackbuts(plateVIII). If, however No. 2 in the plateis a quint sackbut,
No. 1 mustbe a sext instrumenta sixthbelow the tenor. Such instrumentssurvive.
cf. Mitchell GSJXLVIIInote 24. p. 31.

114
instrument, and has tremendous clarity and versatility. The high tuned lutes
have greater warmth. A recent performance of Frottole performed at a'+3
brought a marvellous balance between the singer and instrumentalists.
Having spent several years working on the theory of renaissance
performance pitch, it has been an emotionally rewarding experience to
hear the music played this way and to receive such positive feed-back from
the musicians concerned.

115