I'm shifting the topic cause has nothing to do with my double meantone system with its superlow thirds (the thirds are too low to print, but if you add them to your cart they will show up in cents)
now fetchingly called *drumroll* tiorba cromatica *end drumroll* Back to our show..... Galilei falls PERFECTLY into the descriptive vs prescriptive argument, the prescriptors are the ones telling everyone else how to do it, and try to look good telling it. So I think, and this is interpretation, that it shows that some people were doing the tastini thing, and Galilei is playing Eeyore here. The reference to the local pros is simply explaining to his imaginary critics why he (Eeyore) is not doing it, yet is nonetheless superior, like a tennis pro saying the best players only use wood rackets (more historical, it is true). What we don't know is how many, but surely enough to get Galilei going, not just some fretloose and fancy free comma counters. Since it is prescriptive, it also shows that people were NOT tatstini-izing as well--like everything, a lumpy rather than smooth universe. And to be fair, it is his book and we are glad he wrote it, both for the information and the essential human qualities. dt PS as for famous, the best players are not the most famous ones. There's comfort, even if imaginary. At 12:41 PM 11/12/2007, you wrote: >>>Unless he meant it ironically/sarcastically. Take David vO. He is a >>>"universally known, skillful man" >> >>Leaving his skills out of it, he certainly isn't universally known. >>Not like David Beckham or Osama bin Laden or Paris Hilton. Or Sting. >>Or Paul O'Dette. >He is certainly known lutelistwide, with no less than 17 CD's to his >name, more than Barto and Karamazov combined. > >> >>>and quite given to aristophilia. >> >>I can't imagine any meaning of "aristophilia" that would be relevant >>to the discussion. My Random House Unabridged can't imagine a >>meaning for it at all. >Use inference. > >>>And if I say that he merits much emulation- would you really >>>believe me? >>Ha! A trick question! NOBODY ever knows whether to REALLY believe >>you, Roman. Anyway, you're not Vincenzo Galilei. You're probably a >>better composer, for one thing. >I feel flattered. > > >>But we're getting far afield here. Galilei was writing both an >>instruction and a polemic. If tastini were rare and not used by >>anyone prominent, why would he even bring them up? >There are levels of Prominence, and it is not necessarily achieved >by merit, as we all know............... >RT > > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
