On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:23 +0800, Shaun Ng wrote
I use 6+8. To me it makes more sense to have F and G as diapasons
because they are used more often.
Sorry, but I don't get this. What has the statistical distribution
of F (vs. F#) and G (vs. G#) to do with the question of whether
F (and maybe
On 21 Feb 2014, at 6:00 pm, R. Mattes r...@mh-freiburg.de wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:43:23 +0800, Shaun Ng wrote
I use 6+8. To me it makes more sense to have F and G as diapasons
because they are used more often.
Since there are more Gs than G#s in the literature, to me it makes more
On 02/20/2014 01:59 PM, Anthony Hart wrote:
Hi, much depends on the type of strings you use. The 8-6 configuration
will give you a low F on the fingerboard but in plain gut it's not a
nice sound. However, it gives the possibility to tune quickly between
movements or pieces, when playing
For me it's the question: What the old ones had as setup?
Normally, we can say: An instrument with more pegs than used strings is a
modern invention (of course, the early French theorbo seems to have a single
strung petit jeu, but was perhaps built for double courses in the petit jeu).
And:
Hi,
I am afraid it's a really long story.
- Italian theorbos were, as far as I know, always 6 (fretted) + 8
basses.
- 7 + 7 are kind of hard to find n Museums and collections, but
existed. Extremely helpful when you need an occasional G sharp :-)
- 8 (fretted) + 6 basses
I forgot to mention that I discovered the Franc,ois Campion' quote
thanks to the Theorbo page on Facebook :-)
...and I just checked my own copy (thank you, Andreas!) of Franc,ois
Campion, Addition au Traite d'accompagnement et de composition par la
regle de l'octave, Paris 1730: the
I use 6+8. To me it makes more sense to have F and G as diapasons because they
are used more often.
It is probably worth mentioning that Campion, a late baroque source, gives us
the historical solution for the lack of a G#: play it up the octave. He doesn't
prefer this to the 'Maltot style'
