On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:41:04 +0200, Andreas Schlegel wrote > > Did De Visee write that part about the tenth fret? That would be > > strange since that would shurely be a 'd la sol' (note: no re here!). > > Otherwise high might refer to the guitar's lowest note, d (open > > forth course), but that wouldn't be "high D la re" but a "D sol re". > > Very strange ... > > "J'ay esté obligé de transposer les pieces de musique acause de > l'estendüe de la Guitare qui va jusques an D. la. re. en haut, il ne > faut pas oublier une octave a la quatrième corde, elle y est tres > necessaire."
Thank's for the quote - from wich print is this? (sorry, I'm away from my disk with faksimiles). Not that would make Robert's intentions much clearer. Leaving out a "sol" from the pitch name is possible (since it's redundant except, every "d la" is a "d sol" by nature (but not the other way round)), but the "re" pretty much excludes the high d' (unless Visee thinks of the guitar as a transposing instrument). And the comment about the neccessary bourdon on the d chourse seem to continue the remark about the guitar's limitation in the lowe range. And one could read the need for guitar and score versions at the same pitch from this paragraph. Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
