it would make sense to me to assume that string manufacturing influenced how early instruments were tuned. flabby g's sounded better when they were tuned up an octave but too-taught e's probably didn't last the course (pun intended).
it would also make sense to assume that if a combination of strings made a decent sound it would continue be used in remote parts of europe, on a variety of instruments where musical fashion and technical innovation (better string manufacturing, methods of play and tuning, notation, etc.) didn't have much impact, ie in remote, rural areas - long after it fell out of fashion in town. the music and instruments that were first introduced to south america and hawaii came from working people (sailors, farmers, etc.) not court musicians. these "folk" methods of tuning were probably considered hopelessly rustic and rude by trained musicians. if documentation doesn't exist to support the existence of reentrant tuning or alternative tunings in the renaissance and baroque periods, then how did what eventually became a ukulele get its reentrant tuning and how did the vihuela that eventually became a charango end up with that clanger of an octave 3rd? the reason i originally asked the question had more to do with sound than history. a ukulele just doesn't sound like early music to me - a medieval tune like "caldy valdy" on my charango sounds like something from the andes. i hope this doesn't get misconstrued as a bizarre sweeping statement - i'm just curious. - bill
