It's astonishing really. Hundreds of guitar publications and MSS in the
seventeenth century and just one mention of it. and yet everyone today
uses this method of stringing with bourdons. The actual evidence is so
slight.
One possible reason why it is seldom mentioned is because the commonest
methods of stringing were the re-entrant tuning where there is no need to
reverse the strings, and that with a bourdon on the 4th course only where it
doesn't make much difference.
It is also illustrated in the article by Rousseau in Diderot's
encyclopedia.
So that would be after 1750 anyway and a quite different world.
That is the point. There isn't really any need to reverse the strings for
the later repertoire which suggests that it was something left over from the
past. But Corrette does mention the practice of leaving out the low octave
string and has a specific way of notating it. This may be because a
bourdon on the 5th course was by this time standard - hence the need to
leave it out. There is not much point in doing what he says in the places
where he indicates it as you can just as well play the notes on the
appropriate upper course although it is slightly easier to do it in the way
he suggests.
So is that all: Stradivarius in some notes (early 18th C?), Ribayez, 17th
C and Rousseau, late 18th century?
And Merchi I think.
The cittern is a very different instrument and a fairly minor instrument
at this time. There is no comparable repertoire to the guitar. In fact,
not much of a repertoire at all.
But every barber's shop had one.
Monica
On the guitar it is not just a question of campanellas. The 5th course
is used quite a lot as a treble string in the part writing and whether or
not bourdons are used I think it is necessary to have it on the thumb
side of the course.
Monica
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
