Agreed, to a point, but . . . . . . . Most instruments we know about have existed, or did exist, for a long time - often several centuries. Over that period of time they changed. My feelings are that the changes would have been greatest when the instrument was fairly young. People would have been experimenting with the new instrument and trying various stringing, tuning and maybe different construction as well. Then after a while, probably quite a few decades, one particular tuning - in a particular area or location - would emerge as the most suitable for the use the instrument was put to and this would become the 'standard' tuning for it. A century or two later and musical tastes, styles and techniques would move on somewhat and more development would occur. Take an instrument like the violin, which about 350 years ago settled into the design by Nicoli Amati which has not changed much from then to the present day. Shortly after that, at the same time as Antonio Stradivari was making violins to what was essentially that design, Antonio Vivaldi and Tomaso Albinoni were writing music for the instrument. That music, and music in a similar style, is still played today and so the requirements of the instrument have not significantly changed. The modern version of the Cittern was, I believe, 'invented' by Stefan Sobell a little less than thirty years ago. Still being relatively recent, and not having its own established repertoire, I would suggest that the tuning and playing technique are still in the 'experimental' stage. Give it a few more decades, maybe, and it might settle down to something more 'standard'. Kevin. Brad McEwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Doc: Rant away. That's what this list is for, isn't it? It seems to me that there are so many different variations of any given musical instrument over any given area and period of time that an endless evolution of them naturally occurred. Evolution is possibly a good analogy, as the conditions fofa paticular area (cultrue, climate, etc.) would play a part in determing the type of variation. It's fascinating and very appealing to attempt to discover a pattern of development and to map that pattern. But if we can't do that with modern "Celtic" (for lack of a better word) citterns, how can we do so with historical ones? Look at all the discussion about scale length, tunigns, string gauges, etc. on the other citternlist. That's modern. How would it have been two hundred or more years ago? Brad
Stuart Walsh wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > The more instruments I've seen travelling around the more I see just how > varied instruments were in terms of size, shape, number of strings, > tunings, and quality of construction. For years I've been advocating a > chronological and zig-zag history for the cittern, similar to that of the > guitar. I think the separation between early citterns and the so-called > English guittar was perpetrated in great part by the Grove dictionary. The > writers there consistently insist that the English guittar is not a > cittern; I've never found their argument convincing (in part because thy > don't really say why). > > > > I'll stop before I start ranting... > > > > Doc Rossi > > > I'm nor sure what you are ranting about. If it's connected with what I wrote, I think I simply talked about different kinds of cittern and the history of that instrument. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. -- --
