>>> >>>> Well, if that's the ca >>>> se, why use tablature? Really. Is there any other >>>> reason?
Dear Jim, Stewart's point, I think, was that intabulation showed a specific arrangement that fit the specific tuning of the common lute. If there was common practice that 99% of the players played, say, lutes in G and ren tuning, then mensural would be fine (as is the case for modern guitar for the last few centuries). But it wasn't like this. Lutes, while mostly standardized in intervals, came in a variety of different lengths and top strings, subsequently, ran the gam-ut from, well, gamma to ut. By offering the mass market of those players a one-system-fits-all "tab" system, one could mindlessly play that new Spinacino or Attagnant on your bass, tenor or treble lutes. It was a system that worked well enough that no one needed to change it over the next couple centuries --even though lutes did occasionally standardize at G ...and d-minor ..etc. It was easy to transcribe, both by hand and in print. It allowed the individual to transmit his own fingerings and provided a diagram that was easily absorbed by the brain at speed for those weak of harmonic education. I don't know which of these benefits I appreciate most, really. For the cittern it was especially helpful with all the different tunings and fretting schedules. If you would like to see some counter-examples of what printed chords looked like (and how 'effortlessly' they would have been read and printed) take a look at Tobia Hume's chordal work for the bass viol in the middle section of his 1605 book. It seems have taken a while for this to become feasible and even then doesn't seem to have caught on in the lute world. My apologies to Stewart for jumping in like this. I'm hoping to save him a little retyping. ;^) all the best, Sean Smith >>>> To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
