> > From: James A Stimson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/03/03 Thu PM 07:47:36 GMT > To: doc rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: waldzither] > > > > > > Dear Doc: > And now you raise another question: Why did the cittern change from an > instrument with a very shallow body, tapering to the tailpiece, to a much > deeper body of uniform depth. How did that change affect the quality of > sound and its projection? What was the musical purpose behind that change? > Cheers, > Jim
I keep replying to individuals rather than the list! I've got the hang of it now, I hope. The change from thin-bodied citterns to fat-bodied citterns reflect (I think) the move from plectrum play to fingerstyle technique. Playford suggestion of fingerstyle play in the seventeenth century is unique or very rare. Playing a Renaissance cittern with fingers, and nail-less fingers wouldn't project at all. The guitar (English guitar, or I8th century British cittern) was a very lightly constructed instrument with light tension wires. Also they were played without nails. Ann Ford, in her Instructions says: 'strike closely to the tip, close to the nail.' The Bremner instructions say that the player must press the fingers into the strings. Another source says something to the effect that a Chinese mandarin could not play well until he had pared his nails. The deeper body and the fingerstyle play could be described as more guitar-like. And these instruments were often (surprisingly, erroneously, some might say) as guitars - in Britain and France and Portugal. Stuart ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
