Yes, Brad, I do agree that particular with a large family of instruments like 
citterns there are bound to be regional variations. All I was pointing out was 
that as an instrument matures, so the strings and tuning tend to setle down to 
what is found to be most suitable for a particular kind of music and technique. 
For example, it is pretty widely acknowledged what 'standard' guitar tuning is. 
It is sometimes varied to suit different musical styles - eg: slide playing - 
but it mostly played in 'standard' tuning. Granted some people use 
'alternative' tunings based around an open chord, but the well-known 'standard' 
tuning is more commonplace I think. 
Violin also has a 'standard' tuning which is more often used than any other. 
The changes which occured to Violins towards the end of the eighteenth century 
were not really THAT major - they were just refinements to keep the instrument 
best suited to its musical environment. Most existing instruments of any use 
were converted. All except for 6 known Strads were altered. One,  the ex-Duprey 
Cello now played by Yo Yo Ma  was converted back to Baroque specification a 
while ago for some recordings and has now been put back into modern trim.  If 
the changes were that drastic then they would not be  hacking a Strad Cello 
around  like this !    It only amounts to  changing the neck length and rake 
angle and the bridge height  so that heavier strings can be used with more 
tension and thus give a louder sound.  Unfortunately a few instruments did not 
survive these chages.  Starivarius Violas are particularly rare. 
Anyway, I don't think that we really disagree that much on this. My statement 
was intended to be comparative. I was suggesting that old established 
instruments like the Violin and Guitar have  known 'standard' tuning which has 
emerged as the most appropriate for how they are used and they are tuned that 
way far more often than not. This is in comparison to the 'modern' Sobell-style 
Cittern, which does not (to me, at any rate) appear to have any particularly 
standard tuning. I am suggesting that ths is because it is a relatively recent 
addition to our musical armoury and would expect that some sort of more popular 
tuning for it will settle down over time to become accepted as the 'standard' 
tuning. Let's face it, there doesn't appear to be a 'standard' scale length for 
the modern cittern either ! 
Anyway, I was just putting forward a theory based on observation that things 
like scale length and tuning are more arbitrary when an instrument is quite new 
to the world and settles down, by comparison, as it matures. Maybe I'm wrong ?  
It is only a theory after all.   
Kevin.   
   
Brad McEwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin:
   
  I agree up to a point as well, BUT:
   
  The violin (which you use as an example) underwent a lot of changes in the 
18th C. including a longer scale, greater arch to the bridge and fingerboard, 
more volume, different bows and bowing technique, different hand position, 
method of joining the neck to the body, change of pitch to A440, etc..
   
  Although these changes didn't alter the basic tuning and appearance, they 
were significant.
   
  The ubiquitous guitar seems to continue to evolve (electric, 19th c American 
steel string, resonator, lap steel, dreadnought, etc) to the point where the 
modern guitar is quite different in shape, sound and feel to any typical early 
-mid 19th C version.
   
  Obviously the instruments that we are referring to collectively as citterns 
have a great number of variants.  In differnt  periods of time and locations, 
there appear to be innumerable examples of cittern type instruments with 
differnt sizes, shapes and tunings.
   
  The Corsican appears to have  survived as a distinct cittern type that, 
although differing in many ways to the Renaissance versionretained cetain  
Renaissance features (body shape and re-entrant tuning), yet is distinct enough 
to be quite separate. There are many styles of 18th "English" types and the 
French had a distinct type as well, it seems.
   
  We discussed so many differnt instruments and so many  of these (Spanish 
bandurria, laud, Portuguese guitarra, waldzither, Corsican, etc, etc.)appear to 
be regional variants that evolved over a period of time in separate 
geographic/cultural areas.
   
  Even the Renaissance cittern had variants in terms of shape, size, number of 
strings and tunings. There appears to have been Italian  types, French and 
English. I think that it's a mistake to assume that there ever was a standard 
version of the instrument in that period.
   
  Even though there were some tutors for Renaissance citern (if memory serves 
me correctly), they were for different variants favoured in differnt countries 
(French, Italian, English). What was being played elsewhere at the same time?  
What citterns were played in other countries where no one wrote a tutor?  More 
variants?
   
  There are others on this list with much more knowledge than me, but that's 
how it looks to me, at any rate.  I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
   
  Brad
   
   
   
   
   
  

KEVIN LAWTON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  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.
--


    

---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com  

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Reply via email to