----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Lute Net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 05 January 2004 16:24 Subject: Double 1st
> Dear Sterling, > > There seems to have been considerable variety in instruments known > as theorboes. Single or double strings on the fingerboard is one of > many variants. From the purely musical point of view (i.e. > recreation of different notes, not tone quality), the only > significant difference between a single-strung theorbo and a > double-strung one would be if the double course consisted of two > strings tuned an octave apart. Andrea Dammiani has suggested that > this tuning is likely for the theorbo music of Melii, where there > are some odd melodic shifts from one octave to another. A > single-strung theorbo would not produce the same (desired?) effect. > Dear Stewart, You're quite right that we tend to oversimplify, and someone has already hauled me over the coals for suggesting that Italian theorboes were double, French single, etc. - more of which another time... I know what you mean about there being no difference in *notes* between single and double, but tone quality (and perhaps quantity) is important, which is why I worry about the tendency of modern lutenists to avoid double firsts. I see it as something which has just been quietly swept under the carpet, just as gut frets, thumb-under on renaissance lute, thumb-out on baroque lute, double frets, double second, no wound strings, etc., etc., have been in the past (and some of them still into the present). If we're serious about what lutes might have sounded like in the past, I think we have to try some things which seem a bit odd. We have to be realistic about the success or otherwise of our experiments, of course, and we can't expect to get it right first time (gut stringing being an example of a still unresolved problem). But I think you would agree that we should not ignore the evidence just because it suits our prejudices. Of course the most important thing is the music,! and I feel we've made considerable progress in understanding that (though there's still a long way to go) - but we wouldn't be doing what we're doing if we didn't believe that the technology which makes the music possible wasn't inportant too, otherwise we'd all be playing it on the electric guitar... Enough of that. Having tried a double first, I can say that it makes a different sound, and requires a different (well, more careful) technique. If it was what Dowland & Co. had in mind, it seems more than a historical curiousity and more like something we should take seriously. Best wishes to all, Martin
