Piero Fiorentino wrote: > Why would the > addition of the seventh course suddenly make a difference as to which > courses are in octaves, since the basses remain basses?
It wouldn't suddenly make a difference. The statement that you question revolves around several underlying assumptions: that lute music of the 1500's is meant for an instrument strung in octaves, that the six-course lute was the standard instrument for that music, and that later lute music, for which seven or more courses are needed, is meant for an instrument strung in unisons. The assumptions, like most generalizations, are questionable, and the historical picture is not clear. Dowland wrote that octave basses were contrary to the rules of music, but it's hard to imagine he would have made the remark unless other English players were using octaves. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
