Mark, --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Mark Wheeler <l...@pantagruel.de> wrote: > To be fair to Martyn, he is merely using one of the > fundamentals of > historical lute stringing, the highest string is tuned to > the highest pitch > that is possible with the thinnest useable string. >
How many of us really follow this "fundamental of lute stringing" today? We tune our instruments to arbitrarily agreed upon pitches like 415, 392, 440 etc because its practical. If we were to do the truly historical thing, Jeff's G lute would be at 449, Joe's at 412, Tina's at 463 and Bill's at 398. Chris > So if you have one of those small theorboes then tune the > highest string > (the 3rd course) to e, the first to d. Or as Martyn says > tune only the first > course down an octave for the first course at a. > > This is what they did back then, before modern stringing > possibilities. > > Not daft just practical. > > All the best > Mark > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009 17:10 > An: William Brohinsky > Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner > Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals > for sale > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: > > > 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. > > Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to > Martyn's historical > pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) > > Davidr > dlu...@verizon.net > > > > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
