> I'm sure this has has been asked a thousand times, but do you know why > g'- e' - c' - a -e - B -AGFEDC is known as the 'flat' tuning?
No, I don't because I haven't seen explanations of these distinct English names of the tunings in manuscripts. And I couldn't find explanations of the names in François Pierre Goy's French thesis. What I can say is that the Wemyss and the Pickering lute books (both presumably written during the 1640ies) are the earliest British sources to mention the flat and the sharp tunings, relating the latter to the name Gautier. Wemyss also has a blend of both tunings, "flat save the 3rd sharp". By this third term it becomes clear that the names refer to the pitches of the 1st and 3rd courses. The sharp tuning has the 1st and 3rd courses half a tone higher than the flat tuning. Vice versa, the flat tuning has the 1st and 3rd courses half a tone lower than the sharp tuning. And finally, "flat save the 3rd sharp" ... well, you'll figure it out. 1. Flat: g'- e' - c' - a -e - B 2. Sharp: g#'- e' - c#' - a -e - B 3. Flat the 3rd sharp: g'- e' - c#' - a -e - B The idea of these tunings must have been similar in France, as the sharp tuning is called "accord nouueau par n quarre" (Mersenne, 1636) or "ton de tierce par B n" (the computer character "n" is here meant to stand for natural, same as French "bécarre"), i. e. tuning with natural third as opposed to minor third. My guess is that the two names explicitly refer to each other. The words flat and sharp with each piece in her book (in transitional tunings, that is) suggests that Margret Wemyss (b. 1630, d. 1648) retuned the 1st and 3rd courses of her lute respectively (hence my idea of low tension so as to be able to do that conveniently). > I was looking at an old article by Bill Sampson on the 'English' > double-headed lute and he says that (although none actually survive) the > string > length on the fingerboard strings is much shorter (about > 60cms) than a typical French 11- course lute (about 70cms). Is that true of > your > lute? The original VSL of the Wolff lute is 63 cm. I wanted to have my copy with that measurement because it fits in well with Mace's pitches with the 1st course = g' (with a' = 415 Hz). Gut strings of 0.4 mm for the 1st course g' on a VSL longer than 63 cm will break. Perhaps Sampson based his statement on this reasoning. Mace is the only source, though, to relate the flat tuning to these distinct pitches (on the continent, Virginia von Gehema had her lute one tone lower). Can't say if Mace represented the norm in Britain. And I'm not sure if a typical (earlier? later?) French baroque lute had 70 cm VSL. However, I think that will be the case if you want to have your 1st first course f'. Anyway, Mace's pitches make things easier as regards keys, as most pieces in the flat tuning that way are in simple keys like A minor, C or F major. IMO one more good reason to have it that way. > And he says that the surviving repertoire for the flat tuning on the 'English' > double-headed lute is small: Mace, Matthew, a couple of Panmure MSS and one > other MS. As for the British surviving repertoire, that may be so. On the continent, there's more. I've read somewhere that pieces in the flat and sharp tunings amount to some 2,000 pieces. Most of them are for the 10c and 11c lutes, but with some sources, the 12c lute is required (Rostock xvii-54 comes to mind). There is a register available on www.accordsnouveaux.ch > Aren't there lots of double-headed lutes in contemporary Dutch paintings? Or > maybe they are different instruments? Don't think so. Many of them are tiny little bits, that match the Wolff measurements, in ladies' hands (Bartholomeus van Helst, Frans van Mieris, Hendrik van Neer-Eglon, Jacob Ochtervelt, Gerard ter Borch, Jan Verkolje come to mind). Mathias To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
