On May 1, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Anthony Hind wrote: > May I ask you whether you use both techniques on the same piece, for > a special effect, or only when you change music types (eg music > before 1600 thumb-in, Post 1600, Dowland and those that follow, thumb- > out)?
Sometimes I'll slip my thumb behind my fingers when playing 10-course music (Ballard, Kapsberger etc.). But I would never change to thumb- out in a "thumb-under piece" (to me, Capirola, Spinacino, Francesco etc. from the early 1500's are all "thumb-under pieces"). It seems as though it would break up the polyphony to suddenly introduce a more piercing note, whereas to introduce a sweeter sound now and again is not such a bad thing. > Was the change gradual and not deliberate (determined by the > increase in the number of strings) or sudden? Don't know. It seems quite sudden in the iconography. The change in the paintings seems to happen around 1600. > If it was gradual, I suppose some performer composers may have varied > between both styles, according to the type of piece they were playing. > Would Dowland have still used thumb in for Variations, for example? Good question! I think historical observations work both ways: we can be informed about what they used to do by looking at what we do today... Sometimes anyway. Regards, David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rastallmusic.com -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
