> > It is my humble opinion (for what it is > > worth) that re-entrant stringing was the preferred option for the guitar > > because it worked best in practice with the kind of strings available > until > > the end of the 17th century. > > What was the problem? Couldn't they use the same strings as lutenists??
No - different instrument - different string length - differently constructed - and in any case lutenists also had one hell of a time finding suitable strings for their instrument and spent half their lives tuning them. And when did you last check every string you recieved from your supplier in the way that Sanz describes to check whether it was any good? M > > > > Players > > today are conditioned to think of the 5th course as being the lowest > > sounding course, but the bass line doesn't disappear with a re-entrant > > tuning. It simply sounds in the tenor register. > > Sooner in the castrato register, sometimes even above the actual melody.... > > > > > > Whilst on the subject I would like to mention that Doizi de Velasco does > say > > that when chords are played rasgado, the wrong inversions are acceptable. > > What he says is "And although whichever method of stringing is used, some > > chords will still have a fourth in the bass, these can be made good when > > they are played rasgado - "esto se puede suplir, quando se tanen de > rasgado" > > "Suplir" means to "supply something which is missing", "make good > something > > which is deffective", > > > It can be made good indeed. By leaving out the interval of a fourth between > the 4th and 5th courses. Lettere tagliate that was called. Or written by > Doizi as a D major chord with an x on the fifth course. Indeed to be played > rasgado. > > L. > > To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
