On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:11 AM, David Rastall wrote: > The current topic under discussion of "toy" theorbos has failed so > far to answer the one question without which there is no basis for > discussion at all, namely, what size does a theorbo have to be so > that it can no longer be called a "toy" theorbo? I request a > straight answer, please: no letters in the body of the answer except > cm following some numbers.
Odd that you pose the question right after Martyn Hodgson spilled the beans after years of vagueness, writing: > It was precisely the unecessary stringing of small theorboes (say, > fingered string lengths around 76cm) as double-re-entrant at modern > pitch (or modern 'baroque' pitch) that, you will recall, was the > original issue in the present exchange. Martyn is, as far as I've been able to tell, the only list correspondent carrying the torch for the Theory of Theorbo Toyosity, so there may not be anyone else willing to offer another number, much as I appreciate Mathias Roesel's bringing Douglas Adams into the discussion. Linda Sayce, whose web-page Jeremiad about small theorbos came up in a post earlier today, does not give a Toyosity Threshold number. Nor does she mention varying historical pitch levels. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
