On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > However, for mysterious reasons, some modern players string small > theorboes with low octaves on the second course even when wholly > unnecessary at the pitch in which they play. > > If we have any pretensions to 'Historically Informed Performance' it is > clearly daft to ignore historic precedent and practice. >
OK, guilty as charged, but. Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by Martyn's definition is daft.) The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to the music) means you are daft. But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of decision criteria. ray To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
