> > The zeros are left out to save time and trouble and it is not really > difficult to decide which to include. To me it is not logical to argue that > because this is so you have to decide whether letters or figures are to be > left out. This saves nobody's time and trouble!
I think it is not always easy to decide which open courses should be included in the strum when the tablature doesn't give information (for example when dots are missing, with Corbetta). Let me give just two examples that can cause headaches: p.69 2nd line, bar 2 and, more painful, 5th line, bar 3 (last beat). What to do with open courses? I can come up with several solutions, but essentially it is unclear. Even more so if we compare to p. 65 2nd line, bar 3. This is an almost identical situation, but in another key. Antoine Carre (c.1675 p.17) gave a simplified version of exactly this spot, with only the 4th and 3rd courses included in the strum. (I know, elsewhere he didn't. In fact it doesn't matter much who changed what, and when. The idea to leave out strings is certainly not new, nor just mine). Should we suppose that all open courses should be included in the example on the 5th line of p. 69, to obtain a similar harmony as on p.65 ? [Note that the chord on the 3rd line of p. 12 is different from what would come out on p. 69 when we would add all the open courses. More important is that the chord progression on p.12 is really different too.] > One last thought - an interesting passage from Bartolotti Book 1, p.2, the > 3rd line...first 3 lines... > > A perfect cadence in every sense! Absolutely! I never said that there are chord shapes that by nature are forbidden. Here all dissonance resolves in an comprehensible way, easy to follow by ear. It may the only place in 180 pages with guitar music of this composer with such a remarkable harmony. L. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
