Martyn wrote:
If you have anything like the Praetorius, Mace, Picinni, Talbot evidence on
large theorbos but clearly relating to smalI instruments in this tuning, I'd
like to see it please.
<<
So far we have seen evidence of reentrant tuning for large theorbos, thank
you for the references. And we have solo music requiring reentrant tuning
and strongly suggesting a-tuning (Kapsberger). However, we have not seen
evidence stating small theorbos could not be tuned reentrant. Your opinion
on the matter is clear, but your arguments are not. I hate to be taking
sides in an argument that could, and should, bring us all to a better
understanding of the historical record and, especially interesting for me,
its consequences for our own playing today, but as it stands now I think the
burden of proof is on your side: what are the arguments to deny the
possibility of tuning a small theorbo reentrant in a? Saying, as I
understand you to do, that the fact that large theorbos were tuned reentrant
is proof small theorbos were not tuned reentrant, does not make sense. I
agree with you that bigger is better for much of theorbo continuo practice.
I agree with you that many of us, myself included, have a 'toy' theorbos
(76cm here!) not ideally suited for some of the continuo repertoire
(Montevredi las weekend!) we play on it nonetheless. I agree with you that
covering up the defects of a small theorbo by using overspun basses on 6
(and lower if present at the fingerboard) is a modern solution. But I see no
evidence denying the historical possibility of tuning a small theorbo
reentrant in a. On the contrary, some would argue that the solo music (in a)
would require a small theorbo as it would require rather very large hands to
be played on one of the very large continuo theorbos.
respectfully
David
****************************
David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl
****************************
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
