Which Harwood article are we talking about here?
P
On 7 March 2010 01:05, Roman Turovsky <[1][email protected]>
wrote:
Thankfully we have Renato Meucci to have sorted out the HArwood
mess.
RT
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Tayler"
<[2][email protected]>
To: "[3]lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[4][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
--
References
1. mailto:[email protected]
2. mailto:[email protected]
3. http://lute-cs.dartmouth.edu/
4. mailto:[email protected]
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
