Thankfully we have Renato Meucci to have sorted out the HArwood mess.
RT
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tayler" <[email protected]>
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:03 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Caccini's theorbo
I think the original article by Harwood, et al., is a pretty thorough
study, it just draws the wrong conclusion from its own research by
conflating theorbo and chitarrone. Conflating the terms is
understandable, because many of the terms were used interchangeably.
The big mistake they made was in not understanding that using the
terms interchangeably is the exact opposite of conflation, and that
the result of their system would be that we would wind up with fewer
differences, not more; uniform, not diverse. However the research
itself is right, I think, bass lute tuned physically up or "imagined"
as up by transposition. The information is in the article, just
ignored in the conclusions.
dt
At 01:37 PM 3/6/2010, you wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:59 PM, David Tayler <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I have a Caccini instrument which was made for me made for me which
> is exactly as Chris describes, a large bodied bass lute. I opted for
> seven courses, although eight or nine seemed like a good idea.
Same story here. I have a 78cm 10-course bass lute. I have it tuned in
D, very convenient for continuo, but mostly used for English lute
song. And, indeed, very loud. Pain in the shoulders, too. ;-)
But it seems nobody did a thorough study on Caccini's instrument. Much
interesting andp lausible speculation, though, for which I thank all
contributors.
David
--
*******************************
David van Ooijen
[email protected]
www.davidvanooijen.nl
*******************************
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
