When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain -----Original Message----- From: David Rastall [mailto:dlu...@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:10 AM To: William Brohinsky Cc: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; lutelist Net; howard posner Subject: [LUTE] Re: Theorbo by Nic. Nic. B. van der Waals for sale On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:32 AM, William Brohinsky wrote: > Is it somehow illegal to play music for long theorbos on short > theorbos? If you wish to play the music of Kapsberger or Piccininni, > but cannot afford to buy (or cannot manage to borrow) a theorbo longer > than some criteria (which hasn't really been stated, but is obviously > longer than the 92mm/67mm instrument I played last semester), you are > daft. Either you don't tune double-reentrant (thus satisfying Martyn > and screwing up voice leading, which is daft) or you do (which, by > Martyn's definition is daft.) > > The obvious conclusion is that any theorbo player who isn't rich and > wishes to play music written for double-reentrant theorbo is daft. > > So, by logical extension, being poor and wanting to play some of the > most beautiful music (or quirky, or whatever happens to attract you to > the music) means you are daft. > > But then, isn't a fundamental criterion for playing a 5' or 6' long, > delicate instrument with enough strings to pass for a small harp, as > long as it doesn't involve passing through a door, being daft? > > So I guess I don't see the purpose in this particular set of > decision criteria. Daft old world, isn't it? And, according to Martyn's historical pretensions, daft new one too. ;-) Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
